IMRAN Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.--- Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail from trial Court in Crime No.29/2019 registered under sections 302, 201 and 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Dhabeji. Now Applicant Imran son of Ali Muhammad is seeking his release on bail in the said crime through instant bail application.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as stated by Complainant Muhammad Raheem in FIR in his verbatim is reproduced as under:-
"It is complained by the Complainant that I am resident of above mentioned address and we are three brothers elder brother is Shafi, second I myself and third Ghulam Hussain who was residing with Sajjad Jokhio at Old Dhabeji and was employee at Amrelli Steel Mill. Late Ghulam Hussain was residing with Sajjad Jokhio as such Sajjad Jokhio had developed illicit relations with his wife. Thereafter Late Ghulam Hussain started to live with his brother Shafi Muhammad along with his wife at village Kareem Khan Jokhio. Late Ghulam Hussain had complained me and relative each one Noor Ahmed son of Ali Nawaz Jokhio and Muhammad Haneef son of Gul Hassan Jokhio. Thereafter we all complained his elders but could not get justice and accused Sajjad Jokhio issued threats of murder to my brother. On 18.06.2019 my brother deceased Ghulam Hussain went on duty as per routine and after completion of duty returned at 08.00 p.m. and was missed on the way with Motorcycle and did not reach at home. We searched him and on 19.06.2019 we got information that dead body of my brother Ghulam Hussain was lying in bushes (Devi) adjacent to the bridge on Thatta Karachi National Highway Road. Thereafter police shifted the dead body to RHC Gharo for postmortem and we arrived there, we identified and dead body was handed over to us for funeral ceremony after completion of necessary proceedings. We shifted the dead body to our own village where we inquired from our relatives and friends about the murderers of my brother and now we have come to know that our brother have been killed by accused Sajjad son of Khamiso, (2) Imran son of Ali Muhammad (3) Ghamshad son of Yousif, all by caste Jokhio, all resident of Old Dhabeji by planning and sharing the common intention and in order to suppress the evidence of crime they have thrown the dead body in order to conceal the crime. I am complainant and demands investigations."
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by Complainant malafidely and on account of enmity; That FIR is delayed by six days for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished, therefore, on this ground false implication of the present applicant in this case with due deliberation cannot be ruled out; That the alleged incident of committing murder of deceased is/was un-witnessed; That nothing was recovered from the applicant and alleged recovery on the pointation of applicant in presence of mashirs is false and managed one; That the allegations against applicant is based on presumption and assumption and postmortem report of the deceased is belied with ocular version. In these circumstances the counsel for applicant submits that case is required further inquiry and applicant is entitled for bail. In support of his argument he has relied upon cases of (1) Allah Dita v. The State and others (2012 SCMR page 184), (2) Faiz Jillani alias Imran Mama v. The State and others (2017 SCMR page 61) and (3) Saeed Ahmed v. The State and others (2011 SCMR page 1686).
4. As against this learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for Complainant has opposed this bail application on the ground that the name of applicant/accused is appearing in FIR with specific allegation that the present applicant/accused has committed murder of deceased Ghulam Hussain and he has also admitted his guilt before investigating officer to the effect that after committing murder of deceased he along with co-accused thrown the motorcycle of deceased in Old Well/Khooh near Railway Line on Risaldar Link Road and on his pointation recovery was affected in presence of mashirs who have no inimical terms with the applicant, prima facie shows involved of the applicant in the commission of the offence.
5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions raised at the Bar and have gone through the case paper so made available before me.
6. It appears from the record that case has been challaned and the present applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. It is noted that alleged incident took place on 19.06.2019 whereas FIR of the said incident was lodged by Complainant Muhammad Raheem on 25.06.2019 after the delay of about 06 days. Complainant Muhammad Raheem is not the eye-witness of the incident. The only allegation as per FIR has been that during search/inquiry complainant came to know through his relatives about the involvement of the applicant/accused but complainant failed to disclose the names of the person who informed him about such facts.
7. Admittedly the alleged incident is un-witnessed one, yet the complainant has shown the date and time of the incident in FIR as 19.06.2019 at 1900 hours. It is also noted that complainant in FIR has stated that as per routine his brother Ghulam Hussain after completing his duty on 18.06.2019 was returning back to his house at 08.00 p.m. on motorcycle but he was missed, it is surprising to note that complainant on the night of incident was present at his house so how he came to know that his brother Ghulam Hussain was returning on motorcycle for his house and was missed as such on this ground it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the incident has taken place in a fashion as stated in FIR or otherwise. That even otherwise the police has shown the recovery of a hammer as weapon of crime which is hard and blunt substance on the pointation of applicant but the postmortem report shows that injuries sustained by deceased as incised wounds and the weapon used in the crime has been shown as sharp cutting edge weapon, this fact also require further probe with regard to use of weapon in the commission of crime. It is also yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the alleged recovery on the pointation of applicant/accused in the scenario of the case, including enmity in between the parties, was voluntarily or otherwise. It is stated by the learned DPG that applicant has admitted his guilt during investigation before police. I am not impressed with the argument of learned DPG and say that confession made by applicant/accused before police in its custody was inadmissible in evidence. As observed above investigation has already been finalized and challan was submitted in Court, thus physical custody of accused was not required for the investigation and in view what I have observed above, I come to the conclusion that case against applicant/accused is of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. I, therefore, allow this bail application and admit the applicant/accused on bail subject to furnishing his solvent surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lac) and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless to mention here that any observation if made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case. It is made clear that in case if during proceedings the applicant/ accused misuse the bail, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant/accused without making any reference to this Court. It is also made clear that it is a murder case which require early disposal hence Presiding Officer of trial Court is directed to proceed the matter expeditiously and decide the same as per law within three months. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either-side. Compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT for perusal.
SA/I-10/Sindh Bail granted.