2018 PLP 1810 (YLR)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

The applicant presently confined in Central Prison, Karachi seeks bail in Crime No. 40 of 2017 under sections 322/337-G/279/114 Q&D registered at Police Station Aziz Bhatti, Karachi.

2. Brief facts of the case in hand are that complainant Faisal Naqvi lodged the FIR at Police Station Aziz Bhatti, Karachi in respect of death of his sister Rabia Batool so also other students namely Kiran, Amina Batool and one by passer Saifullah occurred due to road accident at main University Road near Federal Urdu University Gulshan-e-Iqbal. Karachi by Data Coach bearing Registration No. PE-4042 which was being driven by absconding accused Muhammad Adnan in rash and negligent manner by hitting the above named deceased person who were waiting for bus and thereafter said coach was turned down due to which three persons namely Muhammad Irfan, Ayaz Ali and Shafi were received injuries.

3. Earlier bail application moved by the applicant before the trial court was rejected vide order dated 04.8.2017. Hence this bail application.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Mr. Aamir Jameel, Advocate representing the applicant contended that applicant is innocent person and has no involvement in the incident as the alleged coach was being driven by the driver while the applicant is owner of said vehicle. He further contended that applicant is an old aged person i.e. 62 years of age and suffering from various diseases. He argued that the name of applicant is not mentioned in the FIR: there is no direct and impartial eye-witness of the alleged incident as such the involvement of applicant is very much doubtful, thus matter requires further inquiry. To support his contentions learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Shabeer v. The State (2012 SCMR 354), Aamir v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1236) Shaikh Muhammad and another v. The State and another (2013 YLR 248) and Raja Muhammad Akram Khan v. Mazhar Iqbal and 2 others ( 2004 Cr.LJ 985).

6. Conversely, Ms. Seema Zaidi, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh though supported the impugned order but at the same time admitted the factual position evident from the record that the present accused was not driving the said coach.

7. It is an admitted fact on the record that accused is owner of said coach and was not driving the said vehicle at the time of alleged incident. Learned counsel during the course of this arguments submitted that the applicant being owner of the said coach had handed over the coach to Muhammad Adnan after proper verification of driving license which was verified by DSP Driving License Hyderbad to be genuine. Tentative assessment of the material available on the record transpires that the main accused Muhammad Adnan who was driving the said coach had absconded after the incident. At bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case are not permitted and only tentative assessment is to be made, however. where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. Wisdom is sought from the case titled Yar Muhammad v. The State and another reported in 2004 YLR 2230.

8. It is settled law that in case of further inquiry, bail is to be granted as a matter of right and not by way of any concession or grace. Life and liberty of a citizen is very precious and guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. This issue has also been settled down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in (PLD 1989 SC 585). Wisdom is also sought from the case titled "Munir v. The State (2002 MLD 712 (Lahore))" wherein it has been held that bail sometimes was refused to an accused on the consideration of commencement of a trial, but that consideration was to be based purely upon propriety. Whenever a question of propriety was confronted with a question of right, the latter must prevail and commencement of a trial would pose no insurmountable hurdle in the way of bail when the accused was succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry.

9. On tentative assessment of the case I am of the view that case of applicant requires further enquiry, which entitles him for grant of bail. Consequently, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.

10. It needs not to emphasize that observations made above are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not influence by such observations. WA/Z-11/Sindh Bail granted.