2015 PLP 235 (YLR)

SHAHAB SARKI, J.

This bail application arises out of F.I.R. No.369 of 2011 under section 302/34 P.P.C. of Police Station Sukhan, Karachi.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complainant, narrated in the F.I.R. are that they are labourers and his elder brother Aftab Ahmed (deceased) is married and they all lived together in House No.242, Street No.6, Sher Pao Colony, Quaidabad, Karachi. He further states that their relative Amjad Langra and others reside in Quaidabad. The father of complainant retired from PTCL and got some retirement benefits and when said Amjad Langra heard about this amount, which father of the complainant had got after retirement, he started demanding the said amount from this brother (Aftab) but his demand remained unfulfilled and consequently Amjad Langra extended threats of dire consequences as well as killing his brother which was duly informed to him by his deceased brother. On 9-10-2011 Aftab Ahmed went from his house at about 9-00 a.m. in his rickshaw. At about 11-30 a.m. the complainant's younger brother informed him that Aftab Ahmed has been murdered in his rickshaw at Rarhi Road. The complainant rushed to the spot where his brother Aftab was lying dead as he was hit by bullets. He further narrates that he has strong doubt on Amjad Langra, his father Abdul Mateen (the present applicant) and Fazal-e-Rabbi (brother-in-law of Amjad Langra) and he requested that legal action be taken against these persons.

3. During the course of arguments, counsel for the applicant has pointed out that co-accused Umer Rabbi alias Fazal Rabbi was arrested on 27-10-2011 and vide order dated 2-12-2011 his bail was allowed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi in Sessions Case No.928 of 2011 on the basis of the statement of the Investigating Officer that he had not been able to collect any evidence in respect of commission of offence of murder of deceased Aftab Ahmed against Umer Rabbi, even though he was nominated in the F.I.R. Consequently, the Investigating Officer of the case had deleted name of Umer Rabbi from the list of accused and had shown him in Column-2 of the Charge Sheet. Based upon this statement the trial Court had held that the case against Umer Rabbi requires further investigation and hence he was granted bail. I have inquired from the learned Prosecutor as well as the Investigating Officer of the case regarding the material collected against the present accused upon which they have replied that as a matter of fact besides the allegation of suspicion by the complainant there is no other direct material available with them to connect the present applicant with the offence. Learned Prosecutor has however, stated that the present applicant Abdul Mateen, father of Amjad Langra, was arrested on 13-12-2013 after remaining absconder and fugitive from the justice. He further contends that being a fugitive and absconder the applicant/accused loses certain rights and therefore, on this ground the bail should be refused. On this account he has relied upon case-law reported in the case of Rehmatullah v. The State (1999 PCr.LJ 579) and Mst. Mastari v. Noor Nawaz (1999 PCr.LJ 616).

4. I have head the learned counsel for the applicant as well as A.P.G. and gone through both the case-law cited by the learned A.P.G.

5. Another query was made from the learned Prosecutor that if there is no direct evidence against the present applicant then on mere suspicion, entatively speaking, he is not likely to be convicted. The case-law provided by the learned Prosecutor is distinguishable because in the case-law cited there were eye-witnesses of the incident and there was direct nomination of the accused whereas such direct evidence is missing in the instant case. Mere absconsion, without the merits of the case implicating the accused cannot be treated as a bar for grant of bail in the instant case. From the record available, the case of accused Umer Rabbi, who has been granted bail by the trial Court, is identical to the case of the present applicant, and the learned Prosecutor has not been able to controvert this.

6. In view of the above arguments and submissions, I am of the considered view that the applicant has been able to make out his case as one of further inquiry. Consequently, bail is granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000 (Rupees Three Hundred Thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

7. Before parting with this order I would like to observe that the case of Amjad Langra is somewhat different from the case of the present applicant and as and when he is arrested his matter be taken up on his own merits. MH/A-112/Sindh Bail allowed.