1990 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 364 & 201/34

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VU of 1979), S.10

Bail, grant of-- Suspicion was shown in the F.I.R. against the accused

No background of previous enmity existed between the parties

Accused alongwith his co-accused was arrested while driving a car for violation of traffic laws

Accused, immediately after arrest. led to the recovery of dead body lying on roadside at a short distance from the place of arrest

Bloody shoe of the deceased, quilt and a gunny bag were found lying on the rear seat of the car

Place of arrest was not near the house of accused

Accused had not explained his presence there at that ,time of night

Blood-stained earth was recovered from the house of the co accused who was a tenant of the accused

Blood-stained articles of deceased were recovered at the instance of accused

Witnesses had seen the deceased with the accused in the car

Vaginal swabs of deceased were found stained with semen

Bail was declined in circumstances. Ch. Ghulam Hussain and R.A. Awan for Petitioner. Malik Ghulam Hussain Awan for the State. Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari for Complainant. Muhammad Akram, petitioner seeks bail m a case registered against him and another with Police Station B. Division, City Sheikhupura, for an offence under sections 302/364/201/34, P.P.C. and section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. dated 16-2-1989. The case was got registered by Muhammad Shafique with the allegation that he was resident of Jandiala Sher Khan Road, Sheikhupura. His sister Mst. Azra Parveen, aged about 25/26 years, who was not married, was employed as a teacher in Kot Nazar Muridke. She went to the School on 11-2-1989 at 7 a.m., but did not return. The first informant and his family members were concerned, therefore, he with his brother Muhammad Saeed, and one Muhammad Hanif with two others started looking for her but she was not available. He showed his apprehension that Muhammad Akram petitioner with one Abbas may have murdered Azra Parveen, because often she used to complain against the above said persons that they teased her.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking bail that it was an unseen occurrence wherein the petitioner has been involved because of politicial rivalry and suspicion. Contended that Muhammad Abbas, co-accused of the petitioner, was granted pardon but the same was withdrawn as he was not prepared to support the police in the incorrect version. Argued that one Mst. Saira Bibi, mother of the co-accused of the petitioner, Abbas, was cited as a prosecution witness but her name has been removed from the list of witnesses because she made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C: showing complete ignorance. Argued that the dead body was recovered from roadside and there was no evidence to indicate who threw the dead body at that place. Submitted that the only incriminating evidence against the petitioner was that a blood stained quilt, a gunny bag and one shoe was recovered from the car of the petitioner, which in itself is neither substantive evidence nor can lead to the presumption that the blood on the quilt and gunny bag was of the deceased. The contentions have been controverted by learned counsel for the state as well as for the complainant. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the shoe recovered from the car of the petitioner belonged to the deceased. Argued that a blood-stained chhuri was also recovered from the rear seat of the car of the petitioner. Argued that the vaginal swabs of the deceased were taken which were found to be stained with semen. This fact corroborates the statement of a Wajtakar who had seen the deceased in the car of the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the police file in detail. Only a suspicion was shown against regaring the petitioner in the F.I.R. There is no direct evidence which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. However, there is circumstantial evidence available on the file. The petitioner with his co-accused was arrested on 16-2-1989 at 10-30 p.m. They were arrested because of violation of traffic laws and immediately at the time of arrest they led to the recovery of a dead body which was lying on the roadside at a short distance from the place of arrest. At the same time, blood stained shoe with a quilt and a gunny bag was also found lying in the rear seat of the car, which were taken into possession. During the investigation, the said shoe was identified to be the shoe of the deceased. There is no explanation from the petitioner side under what circumstances the said shoe came in his car. I have background of enmity between the parties nor they related inter se. In such circumstances, I fail to understand why the complainant would involve the petitioner unless his assertion is correct. The place where the petitioner was arrested was not near his house and there is no explanation what he was doing at that time of the night at that place. On the following day of the arrest, a blood-stained chhuri was also recovered hidden under the rear seat of the car which was being driven by the petitioner. Blood-stained earth was recovered from the house of the co-accused of the petitioner, who was his tenant. He also got recovered blood-stained articles of the deceased which have since been identified. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the car in question did not belong to the petitioner would not be of much help to him because the fact remains that he was apprehended by the police while driving the said car, and in such circumstances, whether he owned the car or not would become irrelevant. It is also in the evidence of Wajtakar that before the murder he had been seen the deceased in the car of the petitioner. The vaginal swabs of the deceased were also stained with semen. For what has been discussed above, I find prima facie there is evidence available on the file which does not entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail Resultantly, the petition fails which is dismissed. S.A./M-2258/L Bail refused.