SHOUKAT ALI vs THE STATE

ORDER

This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Shoukat A.I Baladi. It is prayed therein that he may be granted pre-arrest bail in Crime No.76 of 1995 registered at Police Station, Khairpur Nathan Shah under sections 302, 305, 344; 201, 452, 392, 147, 148, 149, 109 and 420, P.P.C., since for his arrest N.B.Ws. Have been issued.

2. Brief facts as per F.I.R. Lodged are that on 12-4-1995 accused Sikandar A.I Mangi, SDI Police Station, Rukkan, Imdad Lakhair, SIP Police Station, Saeedpur,-Muhammad Ayoob, A.S.-I. PP Piaro Goth and 7/8 other unidentified persons of aforementioned police post, and police stations duly armed with weapons and ammunition entered into the house of complainant and forcibly took away gold ornaments of Rs.70,000 and cash of Rs.25,000, and while leaving they also took away one Dost Muhammad the maternal ,uncle of the complainant and detained him in wrongful confinement at police post, Piaro Goth without any Remand. On his approach, the High Court of Sindh-directed the learned Civil Judge and FCM, Dadu on 16-4-1996 to visit the said police station and furnish the report w' five days On 2-5-1995 Wawa the Judicial Magistrate, Dadu submitted his report and showed the presence of detenu and with it submitted a statement of Dost Muhammad at the same time. The applicant who was S.H.O., Police Station, Rukkan also furnished his reply that after Judicial Magistrate, Dadu conducted the raid detenu Dost Muhammad had gone away. The High Court, therefore, called the Judicial Magistrate who gave statement that the accused Muhammad Ayoob had been required to produce the detenu Dost Muhammad before the High Court whenever so-called; as such, the High Court directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, to hold an enquiry and produce the detenu but the detenu was not produced. The complainant, therefore, moved another application before the High Court that F.I.R. May be ordered to be lodged against accused persons since he apprehended that the detenu might not be killed or his custody handed over to others since up to 18th.Of May Dost Muhammad did not reach his house. It is further alleged that during the course of pendency of the above application before the High Court the complainant received a letter through his cousin Mumtaz A.I that the accused had killed the detenu Dost Muhammad whose body was given to Edhi Organization and was buried by them and on enquiry this fact came to be true; accordingly such applications were moved before the High Court which ordered that F.I.R. May be lodged against the accused persons. It is further alleged that the applicant Shoukat A.I Baladi, Station House Officer of Police Station, Rukkan concealing the detenu Dost Muhammad assisted the co-accused to save them and that he is also the culprit.

3. Subsequently, all the accused including the applicant moved -bail before arrest application Before the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu which was dismissed by Incharge Sessions Judge under his orders, dated 18-$-1997. Later on, only co-accused Sikandar A.I, Muhammad Ayub and Imdad Hussain on their application before this Court were granted pre-arrest bail on 5-9-1995 by my learned brother Mr. Justice Abdul Majeed Khanzada (as he then was) and subsequently by an other order, dated 17-9-1995 Mr. Justice Shah Nawaz Awan (as then he was) confirmed the pre- arrest bail so earlier granted to them. It is stated that in the meantime the case was recommended by the SSP, Dadu to be disposed of under 'B'. Class. However, it was challaned on 26th of September, 1997 showing the applicant as absconder. The learned trial Court, therefore, issued N.B.

Ws. Against the applicant which was lastly ordered to be repeated on 20-7-1998, therefore, the present application for bail before arrest.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Assistant Advocate- General, Sindh and I have gone through the material placed on record.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dadu ha recommended that this case on the basis of F.I.R. Lodged by the complaint Dost Muhammad be disposed of as 'B' Class, and the applicant who was previously posted in District Dadu was transferred to District Hyderabad hence he remained unaware of the further progress in the matter and did not know if the case was challaned after the delay of more than two years. He submitted that he only learnt about the submission of the challan when the police made efforts to arrest him on the issuance of N.B.Ws. Ordered on 20-7-1998, consequently, he approached the Hyderabad Circuit of this Court' for grant of protective bail which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 26th August, 199&, hence this application. He submitted that the applicant has not been declared as proclaimed offender and no proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Have been initiated against him. His contention was that there is no specific allegation against the applicant if he entered into the house of complainant and forcibly took away valuable articles and that he took away the detenu Dost Muhammad and detained him at Police Post, Piaro Goth and that he killed the alleged detenu. He submitted that the alleged main culprits have already been granted bail before arrest long back and the rule of consistence requires that he may also be treated at par with them and granted the bail before arrest. According to him, the main allegation against the applicant is that he while hidding the detenu gave the other accused refuge and assisted them to escape. He submitted that excepting this general allegation there is no evidence available. He placed reliance on cases of Muhammad Naseem alias Naseemo v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 1.302) and Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi v. The State (1979 SCM R 9).

6. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate on his visit of the Police Post Piaro Goth had not found the detenu in the lock-up but found him at the door of the police post. He submitted that there is no direct evidence available against the applicant. He confirmed that the SSP, Dadu had recommended case for disposal in 'B' Class. He gave no objection to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant on the ground of rule of consistency as the alleged main accused has already been granted bail.

7. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and `the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh and I have also gone through the material available on the record. The applicant does not seem to have been declared as proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court. The facts and circumstances brought on the record make the case of the applicant of further enquiry if in any way he concealed the detenu and that provided protection to the co-accused or for that matter he in any way tried to save the other accused and destroy the evidence against A them. The main culprits have already been granted bail by this Court. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in case bail before arrest application is dismissed and the applicant put in jail to make an application for grant of bail after ,arrest. The case has already been challaned. In this situation by my short order dated 29-10-1998 I granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. In the like, amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court, further directing him to appear before trial Court to face trial. These are the reasons for the same. ,