2018 PLP 149 (YLRN)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

Through the instant criminal bail application, applicant/accused Akhtar Zaman son of Bashir Zaman seeks post arrest bail in crime bearing FIR No. 85 of 2016, Police Station Docks, registered under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. Earlier the bail plea of the applicant/accused was declined by the learned Court of VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West vide order dated 17-02-2017; hence appealed hereinabove.

2. Precisely the facts leading to the prosecution story as is envisaged in the FIR are that on the eventful day wife of complainant Mst. Mehreen occasionally used to get her children back form the school; on the day of alleged incident it was about 10:35 hours wife of complainant left her house to take back her children from the school, while she was on the way and reached at Samad Biryani Kitchen Center Street, where some unknown culprits intercepted her and shot her dead; hence this FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motives; per learned counsel the applicant/accused is not nominated in the FIR; per learned counsel no specific role has been attributed to the applicant/ accused; per learned counsel there is delay of three days in lodgment of the FIR which is not plausibly explained by the complainant; per learned counsel the FIR has been registered with due consultation and deliberation; per learned counsel there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident to connect the applicant/accused with the commission of alleged offence; per learned counsel the guilt of the applicant/accused comes within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and required further probe; per learned counsel the applicant/accused is behind the bar since his arrest; per learned counsel the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation purposes as the challan has been submitted; per learned counsel the applicant/accused is entitled for the grant of bail. Leaned counsel for the applicant/ accused has relied upon the case-law reported as 2008 PCr.LJ 87, 2017 PCr.LJ Note 42, 2013 YLR 381, 2007 MLD 340, 2006 SCMR 66, 2012 SCMR 662, 2011 SCMR 1686, 2010 PCr.LJ 1075, 2013 PCr.LJ 226, 2011 SCMR 902, 2016 MLD 886, 2012 PCr.LJ 1293, 2011 SCMR 1686, 2016 MLD 886 and 2008 YLR 995.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that even the names of the applicant/accused does not find place in the FIR but after some investigation applicant/accused has been booked in the present case; per learned counsel the applicant/accused has also attended the funeral ceremony of deceased Mst. Mehreen; per learned counsel the FSL report is positive; per learned counsel the alleged recovery of the pistol has been affected from the kitchen of house of the applicant/accused on his pointation; per learned counsel the learned trial court has rightly rejected the hail plea of the applicant; per learned counsel the applicant/accused is not entitled for concession of post arrest bail. Learned counsel relied upon the case law reported in 2016 SCMR 1401 and PLD 2017 Lahore 103.

5. Learned APG support the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant in toto; learned APG further submits that learned trial Court has rightly rejected the bail plea of the applicant/accused; per learned APG the offence as alleged have been committed by the applicant/accused comes within the ambit of non-bailable offence as such applicant/accused is not entitled for concession of post arrest hail; per learned APG there is apprehension that after grant of bail applicant/accused may tamper the prosecution evidences.

6. Heard and record perused.

7. It is an admitted fact that incident as alleged committed seems to have been taken place in a street near Samad Biryani Kitchen Center in broad daylight; the place of incident is thickly populated area but no eye-witness from the vicinity has been associated; more so the name of applicant/accused does not find place in the FIR; there is three days delay in lodgment of the FIR which is not plausibly explained by the complainant; the incident as alleged is unseen; no private independent source has been associated to witness the scene of alleged incident; all these aspects of the case leads to case of present applicant/accused within the domain of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C; therefore the case of the present applicant/accused calls for further probe.

8. As discussed supra I am inclined to grant bail to applicant/accused Akhtar Zaman son of Bashir Zaman subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees Three Hundred Thousand) only and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Note:- The observations made herein-above are only tentative assessment and will not prejudice the case of prosecution at the trial. WA/A-58/Sindh Bail granted.