2009 PLP 1111 (MLD)

BIN YAMIN, J.

This order will dispose of bail application made on behalf of applicant/accused Mutmaz alias Kukar, who is detained in case F.I.R. No.135 of 2003, registered under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Taluka Police Station Larkana. Brief facts of the case are that on 8-10-2003 complainant Sajid Ali Shah lodged F.I.R. at the aforesaid Police Station, stating therein that he along with his Masat Dinal Shah alias Shabir Shah is residing in one and some house. That on the previous evening their relative Rajib Ali Shah resident of District Dadu had come for visit purpose. After taking meal he Dinal Shah alias Shabir Shah and Rajib Ail Shah were sitting in the courtyard of their house, where electric bulb was on. At about 11-30 p.m., four persons jumped from the western side wall of the house, who were identified as Chuttal Shah, Anwar Ali Shah, Imtiaz Ali Shah and Hajjan Godehi duly armed with Kalashnikovs. They opened the outer door of the house of the complainant, whereupon four other persons, namely, Peeral, Mumtaz alias Kukur, Yasin and Mumtaz Ali Shah, they were also armed with kalashnikovs came in their house. Thereafter all the culprits dragged Dinal Shah alias Shabir Shah by holding from his neck, on which complainant and others raised cries, but they were made to shut their mouth on firearm point. It is further alleged that accused Chuttal Shah disclosed that Dinal Shah alias Shabir Shah had earlier committed murder of his two sons and today they will take revenge by killing him. Thereafter accused took Dinal Shah alias Shabir Shah towards back side of the house and then by making straight firing of the kalashnikovs they murdered him. Thereafter, all the accused persons went away along with their weapons. Complainant and other prosecution witnesses found Dinal Shah alias Shabir Shah lying dead having firearm injuries on his face and head. Due to odd hours the complainant stayed at his house and in the morning after leaving' Rajib Ali over the dead body of Dinal Shah alias Shabir Shah he came and lodged report of the matter; that accused named above have murdered Dinal Shah alias Shabir Shah because of previous enmity. After recording of the F.I.R. police conducted the investigation in the case, and submitted challan in Court, in which accused Imtiaz Shah was shown in custody, whereas two accused, namely, Peeral and Yasin were let off by police and rest were shown as absconders. Thereafter on 29-12-2006, applicant/accused Mumtaz alias Kukur was arrested in this case and since that time he is detained in jail custody. Earlier bail application moved on behalf of applicant/accused before learned Session Judge, Larkana was dismissed on 7-5-2008 hence this bail application. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned State counsel and perused the case. papers. It is contended on behalf of the applicant/accused that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further contended that co-accused Imtiaz Ali Shah against whom similar allegations were levelled was granted bail by this Court on 3-7-2008. That, there is general allegation against the applicant that he also fired upon deceased at the time of this incident. Learned counsel further submitted that on the last date of hearing it was ordered that a notice be issued to the complainant as well as a report be called from learned Sessions Judge about present status of the case. In this regard, A.S.-I. Naseer Muhammad of Taluka Police Station Larkana in his report, dated 20-11-2008, has reported that complainant Sajid Ali Shah has shifted to some unknown place and their whereabouts are not known. That the accused cannot be kept in jail custody for an indefinite period, particularly when there is no possibility to secure attendance of the complainant and his witnesses in the near future. That there is no possibility to conclude this case at an earlier date. He requested for grant of this bail application. Learned State Counsel has not opposed the grant of bail to the application/accused on the ground that complainant and remaining witnesses are not traceable and co-accused has been granted bail. I have considered the contentions raised at bar and have also gone through the material available on record. The process server as well as learned Sessions Judge, Larkana have clearly stated that complainant of the case has shifted to some unknown place and presently his whereabouts are not known, therefore, in these circumstances, I agree with the contention of learned counsel for the applicant/accused that there is no possibility of conclusion of this case in the near future. Further more, co-accused against whom similar allegation was levelled has been granted bail by this Court therefore, under the rule of consistency this accused is also entitled for the concession of bail at this stage. I, therefore, allow this bail application and order that the applicant/accused Mumtaz alias Kukar be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Two lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M-114/K Bail granted.