2009 P Cr (PLP)

MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.

The applicant Syed Iqrar Shah has applied for his post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.437 of 2008, under section 302, 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Shah Latif Town, Karachi. Succinctly the facts leading to the case are that on 25-7-2008 at 2020 hours S.-I. Iqbal Muhammad Khan lodged a report stating therein that on the fateful day he interrogated the applicant as well as Abdul Rahman, who were arrested under section 54, Cr.P.C. During the interrogation, they disclosed that Mst. Shaheen wife of Mian Saeed, along with one Imran had left her house about two and half years ago, They came to know that Mst. Shaheen was residing in Ittehad Town, the applicant along with his accomplices went to Ittehad Town, brought his mother back to their house where at 11-30 p.m., Anwar Saeed committed her Qatl-i-Amd by causing firearm injuries from the pistol of Atteq-ur-Rahman. The applicant and co-accused wrapped the dead body of deceased in a bed sheet put the same in a trolley buried her at Khuldabad Graveyard. Consequent thereof, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and the co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution to implicate the applicant in the commission of crime. The legal heirs of the deceased have pardoned the applicant in the name of Almighty Allah and have no objection if the concession of bail is extended in his favour. It is next urged that solely confession cannot be the basis of conviction of an accused recorded in the police custody, otherwise is not admissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In support of the above contentions, reliance has been placed upon the case of Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Iqbal 1997 Cr.LJ 561 and Muhammad Shafat v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ

864. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh did not oppose the bail plea of the applicant. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. At the very outset, it is borne out that the occurrence has taken place in an unknown manner, prima facie, case is based upon circumstantial evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, every chain of evidence is required to be linked with the other chain of evidence establishing the guilt of accused. Taking in consideration the above factum, relying on the case of Muhammad Shafat (supra) the view laid down in such circumstances is that the question of `Qisas' does not arise and only the sentence of Diyat could be awarded, which is in the shape of compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. The legal heirs of the deceased Mst. Shaheen namely Pir Syed Shah and Syed Amir Shah are major whereas other legal heirs are minors. They have pardoned the applicant. The only evidence available with the prosecution against the applicant is a confessional statement and recovery of trolley, which was allegedly used for shifting the deed body of the deceased to Graveyard are not sufficient, prima facie to implicate the applicant in commission of crime. Case against him falls within the purview of further enquiry. The compromise entered by the major legal heirs of the deceased, who were competent to compound the offence, brings me to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. For the foregoing reasons, the applicant is admitted on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one Lack only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No.71 of 2009 stands allowed in the above terms. H.B.T./I-10/K Bail granted.