2002 PLP 3663 (YLR)

Mehmood A. Qureshi and Adnan‑ul- Karim for Applicant. Fazal‑ur‑Rehman for the State. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi for the Complainant. By this application, applicant, through his counsel, has sought bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case bearing F.I.R. No.42 of 2002 registered at Police Station Steel Town under section 302/34, P.P.C. The application for pre‑arrest bail was made before the learned trial Court namely First Additional Sessions Judge Malir Karachi but the same was declined vide order dated 24‑5‑2002. The crux of the matter is that on 13‑4‑2002 at about 1‑30 p.m. complainant Natho, who is resident of Achar Salar Goth, Deh Dhabeji, Malir, Karachi, lodged a complaint at Police Station Steel Town stating therein that on 10‑4‑2002 his paternal cousin Razo son of Golo who is employed in Water Board as Beldar and resides in Achar Goth prevented (1) Sakhio, (2) Haider, (3) Inayatullah and (4) Akhtar from taking illegal water connection on which the abovesaid persons had beaten him which was reported by him in Steel Town Police Station. It is further disclosed in the F.I.R. that on the eventful day at about 6‑30 a.m. the complainant proceeded to city for work and was going towards National Highway Road and when he reached near Railway Line of Railway Pull No.51, he saw a person lying in inverting position alongside the railway line. On checking, he found him to be paternal cousin of the complainant who had died having one injury on his head of weapon and blood was oozing from his ears and nose. The complainant immediately informed at Goth and then at police station. It is further disclosed in the F.I.R. that wife of Razo told the complainant that said Razo came at home at 11‑00 p.m. and after taking dinner he slept. At about 2‑00 a.m. she saw that Razo was not present in the house. However, she thought that Razo would have gone to duty. Thereafter, complainant made further enquiries and it transpired that (1) Sukhio, (2) Haider, (3) Inayatullah (4) Akhtar, (5) Ghulam Hussain and (6) Akbar had gathered in the night at Malik Shahjahan Poultry Farm. Accordingly, the complainant got registered report against the above‑stated persons averring that his cousin Razo had been killed by these persons for the reason that he had prevented them on 10‑4‑2002 from taking illegal connection from the water line and these persons also had beaten him. I have heard Messrs Mehmood A. Qureshi and Adrian Karim, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Fazlur Rehman Awan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are not only vague and not based on cogent material but at the same have been made mala fidely against the applicant. It has, further, teen contended that according to contents of the F.I.R. the complainant had only suspicion that the applicant might have murdered the deceased due to previous tight between them and such suspicion does not appeal to common sense as according to the complainant he had seen the applicant. having gathered in the night at Malik Shahjahan Poultry Farm. According to the learned counsel, implication of the applicant in the false case of this nature on the above‑stated ground appears to be ridiculous. It has, also, been contended that even otherwise injury sustained by the deceased as alleged in the F.I.R., involvement of six persons is highly doubtful as since there was only one injury on the head of the deceased, only one person may cause one injury as such the involvement of six accused persons is an afterthought. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. In this background, learned counsel has contended that this is a fit case where the bail in anticipation may be granted to the applicant. He has relied upon the cases of Ghulam Murtaza Qureshi v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ. 323), Sikandar A. Karim v. The State (1995 SCMR 387) and Ghulam Rasool v. Khadim Hussain and others (1991 PCr. LJ 241) in support of his contentions. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that since the parties were previously known to each other and the names of the accused with the motive for commission of the offence had been mentioned in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed It has, also, been contended that the apex Court has time and again laid down the parameters for the grant of pre‑arrest bail in non‑bailable offence. The first and foremost thing or condition precedent for the grant of pre‑arrest bail is presence of ulterior motive, particularly on the part of the police by means of causing unjustified harassment. Another criteria for granting anticipatory bail is that if the involvement is false and arrest is tainted with mala fide for the purpose of humiliation and malicious prosecution. According to the learned counsel none of these two criteria s finds place in the present case. He has relied upon the case of the State v. Riaz Ahmed and three others (2001 MLD 255) in support of his contentions. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that not only the‑name of the applicant finds place in the F.I.R. but he is also stated to be the main culprit. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties, gone through the record and am of the considered view that object of pre‑arrest bail is to save innocent persons from being unnecessarily harassed by being arrested in cases initiated by motivated person. The mere mention of a person's name in F.I.R. is not sufficient to reject his prayer of anticipatory bail without a consideration of other ingredients required to be taken in view of his context. In the present case, even there is not only conflict in the versions of the prosecution witnesses who were examined before the IInd Judicial Magistrate Karachi Malir under section 164, Cr.P.C. but at the same time they appear to be afterthought versions. In these circumstances, I feel that the applicant has successfully made out the case for grant of bail in anticipation. Accordingly, I allow this application and admit the applicant to pre‑arrest bail provided he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Criminal Bail Appeal No.742 of 2002 stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./S‑225/K Bail granted.