HERO alias HEERA LAL Versus State
ORDER
MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J. ---Applicant/accused Hero alias Heera Lal, who has been booked in Crime No.44 of 2017, offence under sections 302, 364, 452 and 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Perumal, seeks post arrest bail after rejection of his bail application by learned Ist. Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar vide order dated 31.10.2017.
2. Precisely, prosecution case is that on 26.6.2017, complainant, his wife Naji alias Poopi and brother Kodo alias Kirshan after taking super were sleeping in the house. At about 10.45 p.m. complainant party woke-up on barking of dogs and saw applicant/accused Hero and one unknown person standing in the house. It is alleged that applicant/ accused Hero challenged the complainant that they would be taught lesson as they had dragged him before nek mards. The unknown accused directed his pistol towards complainant party and asked them to keep-quiet and applicant/accused on the show of pistol forcibly dragged Sh: Popi out of the house and put her in a Coure car and went away. The uncle of the complainant, namely, Amlo also saw the accused persons. On 27.6.2017 at 7.30 a.m. one man of Brohi community told the complainant that a dead body of hindu woman was lying in Sim Nala. The complainant party went towards pointed place and saw dead body of his wife lying in the Sim Nala. The complainant informed his relatives and police. The police reached there and took out the dead body and after post mortem, handed over to the complainant. The complainant after funeral made an application to learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar and after getting order of FIR, he lodged the FIR on 22.7.2017.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is innocent and has falsely been involved by the complainant in order to save himself from the FIR No.51/2017 lodged by brother of deceased Haridas against the complainant for the murder of Sh: Popi; that there is unexplained delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR; that during investigation, the case was disposed of in 'C' class, but learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence; that accused Sano @ Sawai (complainant of instant case) has been granted bail in FIR No.51/2017; that there are two versions of the same incident, hence it is yet to be determined by the trial Court as to which version is correct, therefore, according to him, case against the applicant requires further inquiry and he is entitled for grant of bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon case of Siddique and 2 others v. The State (1989 MLD 3288) and Muhammad Rashid v. The State (2009 YLR 2060).
4. Conversely, learned APG assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail application.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record. It appears that the incident has occurred on 26.6.2017 and on the next day dead body was recovered and post mortem was conducted, but complainant remained silent for 25 days and he lodged the FIR on 22.7.2017. Admittedly, there are two versions regarding the same incident and in second FIR lodged by brother of the deceased, complainant of present case has been nominated as accused, therefore, it is to be determined by the trial Court after recording of the evidence as to which version is correct. Furthermore, the complainant of instant case has already been granted bail by learned trial Court. The investigation officer also recommended for disposal of case in "C" class. The applicant is in jail, hence he is no more required for further investigation by the police. I am of the view that case against applicant requires further inquiry. In case law relied upon by learned counsel for applicant, this court has already granted bail to accused in case of similar facts.
6. In view of above, instant bail application is allowed and applicant/ accused is granted bail subject to his furnishing, a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (two lacs) and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
MQ/H-15/Sindh Bail granted.