1989 PLP 3288 (MLD)

State of Rajasthan v.' Balchand A I R 1977 S C 2447 rel. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicants. Dhani Bux Dayo for A.A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1989. The bail application in respect of applicants Siddique, Moosa and Issa was dismissed by me vide order, dated 1-1-1989, after the same was not pressed. A direction was, however, given to the trial Court to examine P.Ws. Lahano rajab and Moosa within a period of one month from the date of framing of charge. This direction was, however not complied with. The applicants repeated bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge Thatta, but without any success. They have now approached this Court with the same prayer. Admittedly complainant Lahano had implicated Khamoo, Bachayo, Hassan and Oudh for the murder of Muhammad Bachal in the F.I.R. lodged at police station Jati. During the course of investigation the police officer recorded the statements of Rajab Ali and Moosa on 11-9-1988, and on the basis of their statements the culprits nominated in the F.I.R. lodged on 18-8-1988, were let off and instead the present applicants were implicated. It is alleged that there is evidence of judicial confession and recovery of crime weapons from the possession of present applicants. Complainant Lahano, being dissatisfied with this investigation filed a complaint against the culprits nominated by him in F.I.R. in which he also implicated the police officer responsible for this alleged substitution. From the perusal of the complaint and the statements of witnesses, the factual position which emerges is that there are two theories going side by side and in such a situation the established position of law is that the one favourable to the accused has got to be preferred, even for the limited purpose of bail. The case of Manzoor and 4 others v. The State reported in P L D 1972 S C 81, is relevant in a situation like the one under consideration. In recent years the scope of section 498, Cr.P.C. has been much widened. The Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, reported in (A I R 1977 S C 2447), has observed that the basic rule is bail, not jail,, except where there are circumstances suggestive of thwarting the course of justice. Keeping in view the background of the case the present applicants who were allegedly substituted in place of real culprits are entitled to the grant of bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, bail is allowed to applicants Siddique, Moosa and Issa in the sum of Rs.60,000 each with p.r. in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Thatta. It is needless to point out that the observation made above are tentative in nature and are limited to the disposal of this bail application alone. They should not influence the mind of the learned Judge in any manner. N.H.Q./S-406/K Bail granted.