1989 PLP 4783 (MLD)

Naimatullah Qureshi for the State. Through this order, I propose to dispose of Crl. Bail .applications Nos.16Q/89 and 161/89. The contention raised by Mr. Qurban Ali Chohan is that the applicant Abdul Majeed s/o Ahmed Khan is being falsely implicated on account of enmity in respect of offences with which he has nothing to do. Thus it is said that he is involved in Crime No.18/8$ of Daulatpur P.S. reflected in F.I.R. dated 26-2-1989, and Crime No.7/89 of Police Station Bachalpur, as set out in F.I.R. dated 14-3 1989, although in none of these cases, his name which is Abdul Majeed, is mentioned and significantly, in the first of these cases, which involves murder, the name of one Shahzad alias Shadoo without any parentage is indicated but in the subsequent case such Shahzad alias Shadoo has the same parentage as that of the present applicant namely that of Ahmed Khan and, this not being all, in the second F.I.R. caste Leghari, is also indicated which too; corresponds to that of the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge in both these cases has declined bail on the ground that if the applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R., he stands in no need for grant of bail and besides' the question of identity of the applicant was also, according to the learned Sessions Judge, not free from doubt. It seems to me that in case of this character where some connection may be made between the applicant and a person named in the F.I.R. either on account of resemblance of name or by way of parentage or caste, etc., the case of the applicant/accused cannot be placed at a lower level than that with whom identity is confused or equated. Such a case should be considered on the basis of hypothesis that if the applicant was the same person with whom parallel is drawn, what would be the incidents involved, assuming the same to be involved with the applicant himself and, if so, would he or would he not be entitled to grant of bail treating him, for the purposes of bail to be such a person, awaiting, of course, further trial and further proceedings. Evidently, these principles have not been invoked and the case of the applicant has not been considered on the basis of such approach to the problem, which, undoubtedly, is not one of common occurrence. In these circumstances, Mr. Naimatullah Qureshi, learned State counsel, agrees that the applicant who, obviously, is being pursued by the Police Authorities; is to be considered for grant of bail namely, whether he may be admitted to the same or declined that discretion. However, it is not the practice of this. Court to go into such details which primarily lie within the domain and jurisdiction of the trial Court or the Court of Session and, therefore, nothing further need be said on this question. All the more so, as on the view that I take, this matter in due course is going to be considered by such Court. With the foregoing observations, I would admit the applicant in either of these cases only to protective bails in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety and P.R. Bonds in like amounts to the satisfaction of the Add]. Registrar, Circuit Court, Hyderabad. Such protective bails shall endure for a period of 10 days within which the applicant would surrender himself before the learned Sessions Court, Nawabshah, and seek consideration of bail on B the basis of the above referred factual controversy. However, the learned Sessions Court would not be bound to accept any factual premises indicated here or elsewhere and would be entitled to apply his mind independently and come to a just and lawful conclusion on the basis of such material as be either placed or otherwise, available before him. Order accordingly. S.A./A-642/K. Protective bail granted.