2003 PLP 1978 (MLD)

Riazuddin Siddiqui for the State. Date of hearing: 19th March, 2003. On 23‑9‑2Q01 at about 5‑30 p.m. Muhammad Jumman Bhanojo was murdered while returning from village Pir Shah to his own village. He died in the result of fire‑arm and hatchet injuries. His son Ghulam Muhammad who is Primary School Teacher lodged F.I.R. with Qazi Ahmed Police at 7‑30 p.m. alleging that he and his father Muhammad Jamman were returning from village Pir Shah to their village on the motorcycle and his brother Ghulam Mustafa and relative Qassim were also returning from Pir Shah Village to their village. On the way Ali Nawaz Bhanojo with whom their dispute over land was going on was found standing together with Ghulam Shabbir. Pappo, Ameer, Shah Muhammad and two unknown persons. Ali Nawaz and Ghulam Shabbir had gun and pistol respectively, whereas the remaining all were equipped with hatchets. Ali Nawaz asked Muhammad Jumman to stop and challenged him saying that why he was not surrendering the land in their favour. Then Ali Nawaz and his associates launched attack upon Muhammad Jumman who received fire‑arm and hatchet injuries at their hands and died at the spot. The complainant attributed each injury to particular assailant individually. During investigation police examined 5 others witnesses on 8‑10‑2001. They were Dilijan, Abdul Majeed, Hakim and Yaseen. All of them claimed to have witnessed the incident. According to them when Muhammad Jumman and Ghulam Muhammad were returning to their village on a motorcycle they were intercepted by 3 persons namely Ali Murad, Bashir Ahmed and Nek Muhammad all Mari by Caste and assaulted by them. They killed him alleging him to be their Kato. In their statements they stated clearly that‑none else was seen by them at the place of incident. In view of those statements all the persons nominated in the F.I.R. were let‑off by the police and challan was submitted against Ali Murad, Bashir Ahmed and Nek. Muhammad on 30‑11‑2001. Thereafter in February, 2002, complainant Ghulam Muhammad filed Constitutional petition before this Court alleging therein that police had not recorded his F.I.R. correctly and spoiled his case. He stated in the petition that in fact his father had been killed by Ali Murad, Bashir Ahmed, Nek Muhammad, Ghulam Rabbani, Ali Muhib and Anwar in his presence but police did not record his F.I.R. correctly. The petition was disposed of after the statement by learned State counsel that further statement of the complainant shall be recorded and further investigation conducted on the basis thereof. Then further statement of complainant and his other two witnesses namely Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Qassim were recorded and supplementary challan submitted on 12‑11‑2002 showing Ghulam Rabbani, Ali 'Muhib, Anwar also to be the culprits together with Ali Murad, Bashir Ahmed and Nek Muhammad. After dismissal of their bail plea by the learned trial Court Ghulam Rabbani and Anwar have filed present application for bail. Applicants' learned Advocate contended that it is same complainant who has been changing his position in respect of the culprits who killed his father. First he nominated Ali Nawaz and others then he was satisfied with the result of investigation and submission of challan against Ali Murad, Bashir and Nek Muhammad. However, about 3 months, thereafter, he filed Constitutional petition alleging that Ghulam Rabbani, Anwar and Ali Muhib were also with Ali Murad and others. According to the learned Advocate in the circumstances where the complainant himself first implicated one set of the persons and then another one and also statements of Dilijan and 4 others do not indicate participation of the applicants, thereafter, they have a case for bail. Mir. Riazuddin Siddiqui, the learned State counsel concedes to the bail plea saying that in fact this is the case where, in fact 3 versions have been introduced before police and Courts in respect of the culprits, therefore, the applicants deserve the concession of bail. The contentions of the learned Advocate for applicant and the State counsel have a substance in them. It is the same complainant who had first nominated a set of persons alleging them to have killed his father in his presence. He attributed each and every injury to a particular person out of them. In his subsequent version advanced through Constitutional petition in February, 2002, entirely different set of persons was alleged to have killed his father in his presence. Not only that but the five prosecution witnesses namely Dilijan, Abdul Majeed, Shabbir, Hakim and Yaseen though claiming to be the eye‑witnesses of the incident have not implicated the applicants. In the circumstances the applicants deserve the concession of bail. Bail granted. They shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One lac) each with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./G‑153/K Bail granted.