1991 PLP 2018 (MLD)

Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State. This is an application for the grant of bail to Gul Sher, Shamsher, Sikandar and War, petitioners in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Toba Tek Singh, vide F.I.R. No.i16 dated 27-5-1990.

2. According to the F.I.R. the dead body was found lying in a field on 23-4-1990 in the area of Chak No.377/GB of Police Station Saddar, Toba Tek Singh, so a case against unknown culprits was registered after proceedings under section 174, Cr.P.C. During the investigation, the police collected evidence of last seen supported by Dildar and Umar Hayat and evidence of extra judicial confession furnished by Muhammad Rafiq and Mahmood Ahmad, so the petitioners were arrested. Sota was recovered from War, petitioner No.4, and the Challan was submitted in the Court.

3. The learned counsel- for the petitioners submits that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners; that the evidence of last seen was recorded after eight and a half months of the occurrence and the evidence of extra judicial confession was recorded by the police after nine months of the occurrence and that from the medical evidence, it is not clear as to whether or not the injury found on the person of Munir Ahmad deceased was ante-mortem or post-mortem; that the Sota recovered from the petitioner was not stained with blood. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that the witnesses namely, Mahmood Ahmad, Muhammad Rafiq, Dildar and Umar Hayat had no motive to involve the petitioners falsely in the case; that after investigation, the Challan has been submitted against the petitioners in the Court and that Sota has been recovered from War petitioner.

4. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence; that in his report, the doctor has stated that as the dead body was in decomposition process, so it is impossible to give opinion about the fracture of skull or that this injury is ante-mortem or post-mortem. Feeling not satisfied with this opinion, the Investigating Officer made further query on which the doctor stated that "I am of the opinion that probably the cause of death in this case was haemorrhage and shock due to already mentioned fractured skull and most probably this injury was inflicted during the life of the person. The opinion expressed by the Medical Officer reproduced above will show that at least the doctor was not certain as to whether or not the injury found on the person of the deceased was ante-mortem; that the evidence of last seen was recorded by the police after eight and a half months of the occurrence and that the evidence of extra judicial confession was recorded by the police after nine months of the occurrence.

5. Without expression of opinion, lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I feel that in view of the opinion of the doctor as to whether or not the injury found on the person of the deceased was ante-mortem and the inordinate delay in recording the statements of the witnesses of last seen and of extra -judicial confession, it can be said that there are not reasonable grounds within the meaning of section 497, Cr.P.C. to believe that the petitioners have committed the alleged crime. Pursuant to the above discussion, this application is accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Toba Tek Singh. M.BA./473-G/L Bail granted.