MALIK DINO and others vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' The applicants are facing trial in Sessions Case No,201 of 1999 for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Arising out of Crime No,12 of 1999 of Police Station K.T. Bunder.

2. ' Brief facts of the case as disclosed by the complainant Adam are that on 4-9-1999 at morning time his brother Rajab went to the lands of Zamindar Dhani Bux Berozani in jungle. He did not come back till morning. On 5-9-1999, the complainant alongwith his brother Ismail and other relatives started searching Rajab but they could not get any clue. On 7-9-1999, the complainant and others saw the dead body of Rajab lying in a jungle. The dead body was having hatchet injuries. The complainant thereafter lodged the F.I.R.

3. ' The police after recording the F.I.R. Started conducting investigation and arrested the present applicants on 26-9-1999.

4. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the police examined two witnesses namely Ibrahim and Karmi on 10-9-1999. The said witnesses in their 161 statements stated that the accused were sitting in a hotel and were telling to two unknown persons that they have committed this offence and they should advise them as to what should they do. This conversation was overheard by the aforesaid witnesses who conveyed it to the complainant. The police on the basis of this information arrested the present accused. The names of said two persons before whom the guilt was confessed have not been disclosed in the F.I.R. Nor in the 161 statements of P.Ws. Ibrahim and Karmi. P.W. Ibrahim has been examined in the Court. The impugned bail order shows that the evidence of P.W. Ibrahim is not trustworthy as his demeanour was recorded by the Presiding Officer to the effect that his conduct appeared to be unusual and unnatural. The other witness has not yet been examined in the Court. The incident is admittedly unwitnessed. The dead body of deceased was recovered after three days when it was in decomposed condition. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicants. The alleged extra-judicial confession is said to have been made before two persons, whose names have not been disclosed. The evidence of witnesses Ibrahim and Karmi in such circumstances and situation can hardly be the basis for awarding sentence to the applicants.

5. ' Mr. Fazlur Rehman Awan, Advocate appearing for the State under such circumstances has conceded to the bail plea of the applicants.

6. ' The F.I.R. In this case was recorded after dead body was found in jungle after three days.

7. Admittedly the incident war, unwitnessed. The accused were arrested on the basis of extra-judicia confession said to have been made before two unknown persons, whose names are yet not known to the prosecution. Nothing incriminating is recovered from the possession of the accused. Learned counsel for the State has conceded to the bail plea of the accused. The accused were arrested on 26-9-1999. They have remained in jail for more than two years. There appear no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused have committed an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The case of accused required further enquiry. The applicants were granted bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court by a short order, dated 29-9-2001. These are the reasons.