1996 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S302/34

Bail, grant of -Case against accused was of unwitnessed incident and as regards alleged confession of accused, he was shown to have stated that he made confession on directions given to him

Such confession on part of accused not only was not admissible in evidence, but would show mala fides of Investigating Agency

Timing regarding death of deceased mentioned in post-mortem report did not appear to tally with timings as mentioned in the F.I.R.--Case being of further enquiry, bail was granted to accused. Hidayatullah Abbasi for Applicant. Shafi Muhammad Memon, AA.-G. This bail application has been moved on behalf of present applicant who is involved in a case registered as Crime No.15/1995 with Sakhi Pir Police Station, Hyderabad under section 302/34, P.P.C. According to the F.I.R. the deceased Fida Hussain had friendly terms with applicant Ghulam Hussain alias Guddu and Moula Bux alias Papoo who used to accompany him to the house. It is alleged that on 1-2-1995 deceased had come to the house of complainant alongwith his two abovesaid friends and as usual he went inside his room with both these persons. It was at about 22-45 hours that the complainant saw the applicant and Moula Bux coming out of the house who went away. The complainant then himself went to sleep and on the next day in afternoon he knocked the door of the room of deceased and after breaking open the said door he found that the deceased was lying on a couch with -his neck having been slit. The complainant then telephoned his other brothers who also came there. The F.I.R. was registered thereafter and the police after usual investigation arrested the accused and put up the challan. Bail application was moved on behalf of the present applicant which was rejected, and therefore, this bail application. I have heard Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shari Muhammad Memon learned AA.-G. The counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deceased was aged about 39 years where the applicants are boys of tender age who could not have overpowered the deceased and killed him by cutting his throat. He has further submitted that there is no evidence against the present applicant and that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As against this the learned AA.-G. has argued that there is a confession of the applicant coupled with the recovery of the crime weapon. He has further submitted that age by itself can be no ground for grant of bail and that the present applicant who is said to be aged 17 years was being subjected to carnal intercourse by the deceased, and therefore, he alongwith Moula Bux caused the murder of the deceased. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel. It may be observed that this is a case of an unwitnessed incident, As regards the confession the applicant is shown to have stated that he is making confession on the directions given to him. Accordingly this confession cannot be admissible in evidence. Not only this but this goes to show mala fides of the investigating agency. Thus, we are left with only one piece of evidence that is of 14 last seen. If the post-mortem report is taken into consideration then the timings regarding the death of the deceased would not appear to tally with the timings as mentioned in the F.I.R. Accordingly, I am of the view, that this is a case of further enquiry and I, therefore, accept this bail application and direct the applicant to be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the 1 satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./G-395/K Bail granted.