2011 PLP 2270 (YLR)

SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.

The applicant Zulfiqar Ali seeks bail in a case culminating from F.I.R. No.101 of 2009 registered at Police Station B-Section Khairpur for offence under section 302, 34, P.P.C. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per F.I.R. lodged by complainant Ghulam Rasool are that, his father-in-law Wazir Ali had died about five years ago who had two daughters, those were married to him and his brother Ali Nawaz. His mother-in-law Dadli is residing in her village who was wrongfully confined by Jan Muhammad Buriro in his house and was forcing her to marry. About 8 weeks back she came to complainant party and was residing with them. Jan Muhammad came to complainant and asked him that he will marry with Mst. Dadli hence complainant should hand over her hand, upon refusal of complainant he sent message that he will take account from complainant as complainant has misguided Mst. Dadli. It is alleged that on 13-6-2009 complainant his son Ghulam Shabbir aged about 21/22 years, his brother Ali Nawaz, nephew Saleem, after having night meal and closing the outer door went to 'sleep, electricity bulbs were on. On 14-6-2009 at 05-00 hours on the noise all the family members of complainant woke up saw and identified accused Zulfiqar Buriro (applicant/ accused) (2) Liaquat Ali, (3) Sarwar, (4) Darya Khan Jamro armed with K.Ks entered in the house of complainant and controlled upon them. Out of which Zulfiqar asked that complainant party has not made good' while refusing to give the hand of Mst. Dadli to his father saying so accused Liaquat took Ghulam Shabir son of complainant by his arms and dragged out side while other accused gave hakal not to raise cry. Complainant beseeched the accused on Holy Quran and chased them. After half an hour all accused made direct firing upon his son with intention to murder him. His son received fire arm injuries and fell down, then all the accused ran away towards western side. The complainant went and saw his son Ghulam Shabir who had received fire arm injuries on his face, neck, chest and back and was bleeding and died within their sight. Complainant then leaving the witnesses over the dead body arranged the vehicle and then took the dead body to Civil Hospital Khairpur where he left the dead body under the supervision of witnesses, came at Police Station B-Section Khairpur, gave intimation to the police and got conducted the post mortem of deceased from Civil Hospital Khairpur, and after burial ceremony lodged the F.I.R. at the above Police Station. The applicant moved his bail application before the trial Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27-1-2011, hence the present bail application has been filed before this Court. Mr. Nadeem Malik learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to enmity. He further argued that there is delay of two days and 9 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation, while the P.Ws cited in the case are related inter se. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that no any crime weapon has been recovered from the possession of applicant. He also argued hat co-accused Darya Khan Jamro was let off by the police during investigation by showing his name in Column No.2 of the challan. The learned counsel submit that there is general allegation of firing against all the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned against the applicant. He submits that the case of the applicant requires for further' enquiry falling within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Conversely Mr. Syed Sardar Ali learned A.P.-G. opposed the bail application on the ground that delay in lodging of F.I.R. has plausibly been explained as the complainant after leaving the witnesses over the dead body and arranging conveyance arrived Police Station at once and after burial of dead body and conducting post mortem lodged the F.I.R. Learned A.P.-G. further argued that the name of the applicant appear in the F.I.R. and the deceased was died due to firing of all the accused persons, while the deceased sustained injuries on his face, neck, chest and back. I have heard the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record. From the perusal of record it appears that the name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R.; with the role of firing at the deceased. The applicant has participated in the commission of offence thus common intention of the applicant cannot be determined at this stage as the applicant is charged with the offence of capital punishment and innocence and guilt of the applicant would be determined by the trial Court. The complainant has plausibly explained the delay in lodging of F.I.R. For the foregoing reasons I am of the considered view that the applicant has miserably failed to make out a case for further enquiry, thus he does not deserve for the concession of bail, therefore, by my , short order dated 19-5-2011 dismiss the bail application of the applicant and these are the reasons for the same. The observations made above are tentative in nature which shall not be influenced upon the trial Court while deciding the case. H.B.T./Z-9/K Bail refused.