2013 PLP 117 (YLR)

RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.

The applicants Haibat son of Abdul Raheem Bakhrani and Sharbat son of Bijar Khan Bakhrani have been involved in Crime No.143 of 2011 of Police Station Thull, for offences punishable under sections 302, 109, 201 P.P.C.

2. The relevant facts of the case according to F.I.R are that on 30-8-2011, the son of complainant, namely, Abdullah Bakhrani, aged about 13/14 years was found missing; latter-on the complainant came to know through his well-wishers that his son was brought by accused Sharbat, Sain Bux, Ameer Bux and they have concealed the dead body of Abdullah. On 31-8-2011, the complainant was standing with co-villagers near to his house, where they saw accused Haibat, Sharbat, Sain Bux, Ameer Bux and two unidentified persons whose faces were muffled but would be identified, if seen, they threw away the dead body of Abdullah in watercourse and made their escape good. The complainant took out the same from watercourse, saw and found a cut-mark available on the neck of dead body and his cervical cord was found broken. Then, he shifted the dead body to his house and after burial they approached the nekmards of locality for brothry "Fasila" and did not appear at police station for lodging the report and after some time when the complainant was disappointed by the nekmards, he appeared at police station and got his report lodged.

3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the F.I.R is delayed by about 20-days without plausible explanation; there is no ocular evidence in respect of occurrence of the alleged incident; no postmortem was conducted at the very moment; after three months dead body was exhumed and the ocular evidence is not supported by the postmortem report; the applicant is behind the bars since 23-9-2011; the challan was submitted on 8-10-2011, and during course of investigation the applicant participated the investigation; no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of applicant and he is no more required to police for further investigation, therefore, his further detention in jail will not serve any fruitful result and the case is of more than one version, therefore, it requires further enquiry. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon case of Muhammad Ismail v. Khushi Muhammad and 7 others (PLD 1974 SC 37), and Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another (PLD 1996 SC 241).

4. Conversely, the learned State counsel and learned Advocate for complainant submit that the complainant filed a Direct complaint, whereby he has specified the role of applicant Haibat having stick (dandi), and applicant Sharbat, the incident had taken place within the sight of complainant, as he was present at the place of incident. They further submit that the case of complainant was damaged by the police, therefore, he filed the Direct complaint. Learned counsel further submitted that version given by the complainant in direct complaint is correct one, whereby he has specified the role of the applicants at the time of occurrence, therefore, the case is not fit for grant of bail. It is further contended that as per para 3 of the direct complainant the son of the complainant was beaten by the applicants along with co-accused persons with sticks in presence of the complainant.

5. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of learned counsel for the applicants, learned State counsel, learned Advocate for the complainant and examined the record.

6. The F.I.R is delayed by about 20 days; such delay is admittedly on the part of complainant as he has at the very instance approached for conducting brothry "Fasila" and later-on he appeared at Police Station. The complainant has filed a Direct complaint of same incident with different version. Admittedly, this is a case of more than one version, which version is true; it will be decided at the time of trial; the case has been challaned; no incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the applicant, though he was in custody during course of investigation. The ocular testimony is not supported by the medical evidence, as the cause of death was disclosed as 'undetermined' by the Medical Board. In the circumstances, the applicants have succeeded to make out their case for granting bail. Consequently, this bail application stands allowed and the applicants are granted bail on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Two hundred thousands) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. MWA/H-21/K Bail granted.