2013 P Cr (PLP)

SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.

Applicant is involved in Crime No.34 of 2010 P.S. Oderolal for offences under sections 302, 201 and 34, P.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Mst. Jado on 25-8-2010 are that she has four daughters and one son, out of whom daughter Mst. Rasheeda was married about four years back with Zulfiqar alias Zulfo Majeedano, who has no issue. Oftenly Rasheeda used to make complaint to the complainant that Zulfiqar is of bad character person and does not provide maintenance and used to beat her. On 23-8-2010, the complainant along with her son Muhammad Hanif went to visit Rasheeda at her house, where Rasheeda was not available and on enquiry, Zulfiqar alias Zulfo and his brother Imam Bux told that they have no knowledge. Thereafter the complainant party informed the fact to Wali Muhammad, Abdul Karim, Riaz and other relatives. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that thereafter, the complainant came to know that her daughter Mst. Rasheeda has been murdered by Zulfiqar Zulfo and his brother Imam Bux Majeedano, who took her with pretext of cutting grass and then they returned back, but Mst. Rasheeda did not return. Thereafter the complainant party came to know that in the canal at the module of Yar Muhammad Shah, dead body of a lady is hanging so the complainant and her witnesses went there and saw that the dead body of her daughter Mst. Rasheeda was there so they informed the police and after completing the legal formalities, police sent the dead body for post mortem and then the dead body was handed over to complainant party and after burial ceremony the complainant lodged the instant F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident as there is no last seen evidence. He has further contended that there is a delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. and the present applicant is the brother of husband of deceased and also there are contradictions in 161, Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. with F.I.R. He has further contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant on account of enmity over the matrimonial dispute, otherwise he has no concern with the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that according to contents of F.I.R., there is no specific role or overt act has been assigned to the present applicant and only allegations are based on hearsay evidence and no recovery has been effected either from the place of incident or from the applicant as the dead body was recovered after 27 hours from the canal. In view of above, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is entitled for concession of bail.

4. Learned A.P.-G. on the other hand opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R.; the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained; the alleged incident is heinous one and there are reasonable grounds that deceased was murdered by the accused persons.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

6. The complainant Mst. Jadu mother of deceased lodged F.I.R. on 25-8-2010 at 1630 hours but the date and time of incident is missing in F.I.R. The police during the course of investigation got recorded 164, Cr.P.C. statements of P.W. Muhammad Hanif and P.W. Wali Muhammad son and brother in law of complainant from the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Matiari wherein they alleged that Mst. Rasheeda was strangulated by accused Zulfiqar and his brother co-accused Imam Bux and she was done to death and thereafter her body was thrown in Rohri Canal but they failed to disclose the source of information. The post mortem notes reveal that deceased received one injury caused by sharp cutting object. This fact belies the version of prosecution that Mst. Rasheeda was done to death by strangulation. This fact will be thrashed out by the trial Court while recording evidence. On the face of it there is no ocular evidence but only hearsay evidence. The accused was arrested along with Zulfiqar husband of deceased on 3rd September, 2010 and the trial has not been concluded. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the case of present applicant requires further inquiry. Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) with PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not affect the case of prosecution. MWA/I-13/K Bail granted.