2005 PLP 3230 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.

Through this application applicants Nusrat and Hussain Bughio both have approached this Court for bail in Crime No.15 of 2003, Police Station Fatehpur, registered under sections 302, 364, 148 and 149, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicants was declined vide order dated 18-12-2004. The facts of the case in brief are that on 22-12-2003 at 4-40 a. m. complainant Ghulam Shabir Bughio lodged F.I.R. at Police Station, Fatehpur, alleging inter alias that he is owner of three acres belonging to Bashir Ahmed Bughio, wherein he had cultivated Sugarcane Crop. On 13-12-2003, he along with his brother Ghulam Sarwar alias Shaban and relatives Sansar and Shakeel went for watering the crop, where at about 5-30 p.m. accused Mazhar, Nusrat, both armed with K.Ks., lmtiaz, Moula Bux, Gulab, Illahi Bux, Hussain, Nizamuddin armed with guns, Fatoo, Sulleman, Hyder Jamshed, Bachal, Qurban and Ghulam Nabi armed with guns and three other unknown persons with K. Ks. came there and abused the complainant saying that there was some dispute between them and the complainant party over land and the accused fired in the air and abducted Ghulam Sarwar alias Shaban, bother of complainant, on gun point with a view to kill. It is further alleged that the complainant party being empty-handed, entreated the accused on Holy Qur'an. The complainant thereafter informed such matter to police and also to D.P.O., Larkana. He then started for his brother at his own and en 21-12-2003, the complainant noticed a news published in daily newspaper `Kawish' about availability of a dead body at Police Station, Kandiaro, therefore, he went there and identified the dead body to be of his brother Ghulam Sarwar and on directions of Kandiaro Police the complainant first lodged the report at Police Station, Fatehpur. The dead body was handed over to him, disclosing alleging therein that due to enmity, the accused persons committed murder of his brother Ghulam Sarwar. The investigation followed and in due course, the applicants were arrested and sent up to stand trial. Heard Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Habibur Rahman Shaikh, Asstt. A.-G. for the State. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the applicants that his clients are innocent and they have been implicated in this case in the background of enmity and suspicion. He further contended that F.I.R. is belated by ten days and no plausible explanation has been put forth for such a long delay. It has also been contended that although the names of applicants appear in the F.I.R. excepting general allegation of firing in the air. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants. Learned counsel further contended that deceased Ghulam Sarwar was not murdered by the applicants or any other accused. He also contended that the dead body of deceased was found by the Kandiaro Police on the Bank of Indus River having a fire-arm injury at his head, therefore, according to the learned Advocate, the applicants cannot be held responsible for the murder of deceased. Learned counsel further drawn my attention towards the Mashirnama of recovery of dead body prepared by Kandiaro Police, and contended that in the said Mashirnama it has been mentioned that the complainant disclosed before Kandiaro Police that deceased Ghulam Sarwar was missing about a week back, hence the allegation of abduction was bundle of lies. Learned counsel lastly contended that the case against the applicants requires further enquiry and they are entitled to be released on bail. Learned Asstt. A.-G. conceded to the arguments of learned Advocate for the applicants and raised no objection to the grant of bail to the applicants/accused. I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and properly assessed the material brought before me. I have also taken close .look to the F.I.R. which indicates that in the first instance deceased Ghulam Sarwar was kidnapped before complainant party by 18 accused persons, out of whom 15 accused persons were named in the F.I.R. and then on 21-12-2003 the complainant party came to know about recovery of dead body by Kandiaro Police and then such F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant claiming that Ghulam Sarwar was abducted by the accused persons and then killed. It seems that nobody had witnessed the operative part of causing murder of deceased Ghulam Sarwar. Besides these facts, it appears that F.I.R. was lodged with inordinate delay of ten days which is not plausibly explained. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants/accused in the F.I.R. and even none of the accused caused any injury to the deceased or to the P. Ws. at the time of incident. It is also pertinent to note that there is no eye-witness of the incident who witnessed the commission of murder and all the prosecution witnesses as well as Mashirs are interested, set up and hostile to the accused persons. At this stage, in my humble view, the aforementioned discussion suggests that the implication of 18 persons, mostly from the same family, could be result of admitted enmity. In view of above discussion, the offence of abduction with intention to commit murder, as alleged in the F.I.R. against the applicants and co-accused requires adjudication. In this background this application merits consideration which calls for further enquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. consequently the application for bail is allowed provided they furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each (rupees two lass) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No.352 stands disposed of as such. H.B.T./N-73/K Bail granted.