SHAREEF ABDULLAH and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by Shareef Abdullah and two others seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from FIR No. 137 of 2001 at Police Station Manghopir. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants have made out a case for further inquiry and the grant of bail, given an unexplained delay of nearly four months in lodging the FIR, shifting versions regarding the cause of death from an accident to murder, and the specific role attributed to the applicants relating to the removal of the dead body. The court held that the applicants made out a case for bail, noting that the allegations against them at best attract Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a lesser penalty and is bailable. The key principle laid down is that where the primary attribution against an accused points toward concealing evidence rather than active participation in the capital charge, and where significant delays and contradictory versions characterize the prosecution case, bail ought to be granted pending trial.
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes a ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does an allegation limited to the removal and disposal of a dead body attract a bailable offense under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether shifting versions between the initial report and subsequent statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create a case for further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' By this order I intend to dispose of Criminal Bail Application No, 1792 of 2001 in a case bearing F.I.R.
2. No, 137 of 2001,under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Manghopir. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, West vide order dated 11-12-2001. The prosecution story as enunciated in the F.I.R. Is that on 22-7-2001 at 8-40 p.m. An application of complainant bearing No, F.I.R. 245 of 2001 dated 11-6-2001 was received alleging inter alia that on 4-6-2001 his mother. Anaran Khatoon had gone for some work and on the next day i,e, 5-6-2001 at Safari Stop, Manghopir Road, Karachi her dead body was received. It is further stated that the complainant being driver by profession had gone to Faisalabad and on 5- 6-2001 he was informed on telephone about the death of her mother due to some accident. The complainant then rushed to Karachi where he learnt that his mother was tortured/beaten by rods, sticks and murdered by the accused persons due to suspicion as she had made some `Taveez'. It is also alleged that as a result of the beatings the deceased received fatal blows on head, eye and her teeth were broken. It is also alleged that the said incident had taken place on 4-6-2001 at about 9 a.m. And dead body of the deceased was kept in a room and at about 4-00 a.m. The accused persons threw away dead body. While giving bath to deceased, complainant found infliction of injuries on the person of deceased and thereafter exhumation had taken place which shows that the deceased received injuries on head, eyes and teeth by hard and blunt substance.
3. The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. Inasmuch as the accident had taken place on 4-4-2001 whereas the F.I.R. Lodged on 22-7- 2001 and the delay of three months and eighteen days in recording F.I.R. Is quite unexplained. It has further been argued that first it was stated that deceased died due to accident but in 161, Cr.P.C.
5. Statements of the witnesses Sher Khan, Dilbar Khan and Muhammad Yousuf advanced different version mentioned as against the F.I.R. By which fresh theory was advanced to the extent that deceased has not died due to accident but her death was unnatural. Thereafter, on 107-2001, on the application made by the complainant Abdul Qayyum the exhumation of the deceased had taken place and the exhumation report is identical to the post-mortem report. It has further been argued that the only allegation against the applicant is recovery of dead body which was removed from the ground to the vehicle. According to learned counsel the offence at the most would fall under section 201, P.P.C. Which is punishable for seven years and bailable too. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State concedes to the above legal position but reluctantly she states that since it is a murder case she cannot come out with a statement that she has no objection to the grant of bail.
6. In these circumstances I am of the considered view that the applicant Shareef Abdullah, Amanullah and Khan Dil Khan have made out a case for bail, which is granted after furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 each and P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.