1995 P Cr (PLP)

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the following grounds:-- (i) that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of five days; (ii) that incriminating statement of Allah Yar P.W. was recorded after several days of the lodging of the F.I.R; (iii) that the petitioner is not connected with the motive part of the prosecution story; (iv) that the prosecution case basically consists of circumstantial evidence and in such a situation, this Court has released the accused on bail. Learned counsel relies on Rifaqat Ali v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 379, Darhoon and 4 others v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 3218 and Zulfiqar v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 938.

6. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of father of Mst. Khatoon Bibi have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as follows:-- (i) that it is in evidence that Zahoor petitioner had taken away Mst Khatoon Bibi and ultimately done to death in the house of Allah Yar; (ii) that on 24-11-1990, Mst. Khatoon Bibi was to be produced in the High Court and Zahoor petitioner had taken her away from the house of her parents for the said purpose and he did not produce her in Court which shows that he wanted to murder her which he did. Learned counsel relies on Shahzaman and 2 others v. The State and another PLD 1994 SC 65, Qadu and 3 others v. The State 1994 SCMR 699 and Bashir Ahmad and 2 others v. The State 1994 SCMR 1147 to contend that as the petitioner is involved in a case which falls in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, he is not entitled to the bail at this stage. 7.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

8. The prosecution case primarily hinges on circumstantial evidence. During investigation it came to light that complainant of this case who claims to be husband of Mst. Khatoon Bibi on the basis of some oral Nikah was privy to the plan of abduction and murder of Mst. Khatoon Bibi. The statements of Khadim Hussain, Manzoor Ahmad, Falak Sher and Allah Ditta who have no enmity with the petitioner are to the effect that they saw Zahoor Ahmad petitioner taking Mst. Khatoon Bibi on a motor-cycle and thereafter she was never seen. The statements of these witnesses stand corroborated by Allah Yar with whom the petitioner had relations its they shared the same business i.e. milk selling. He and his wife have stated that Zahoor Ahmad brought Mst. Khatoon Bibi to their house. She was kept there four/five days and ultimately killed one night. Allah Yar is also a witness of the manner in which the dead body of Mst. Khatoon Bibi was thrown in to the desert canal. The dead body could not be immediately recovered despite the pointation of Allah Yar P.W. and the reason for this delay is given by the S.H.O./Investigating Officer in Zimni, dated 9-2-1995. According to him, the search for the dead body from the said canal was delayed as the canal was 9/10 feet deep and fairly wide. In this view of the matter, the annual closure of the canal was awaited. The recovery of the dead body was made at the pointation of Zahoor Ahmad and Allah Yar which was witnessed by Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Murad. As the recovery was delayed by almost two months, only; the bones, two pitchers with which the dead body was tied, the cloth in which the dead body was wrapped and the clothes of the deceased were recovered. These articles were duly identified by Allah Yar, Muhammad Sadiq father and Mst. Bibi mother of the deceased. Even these witnesses are neither biased nor inimical towards the petitioner to falsely implicate him. There is yet another aspect of the matter. A petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.311/H of 1994 was filed by Liaqat All for the recovery of Mst. Khatoon Bibi claiming himself to be her husband. During hearing of that petition, the father of the alleged detenue appeared in Court on 20-11-1994 to state that Mst. Khatoon Bibi had been taken away from his house for production before the High Court by her uncle i.e. Zahoor Ahmad petitioner who was also respondent No.3 in that habeas petition. He further deposed that eversince then, the whereabouts of her daughter were not known. In view of the statement made by father of Mst. Khatoon Bibi deceased, this Court directed S.H.O., Police Station Maroot to record his statement and ensure that the detenue is produced in Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 24-11-1994. S.H.O., Police Station Maroot submitted that a case has been registered under section 364, P.P.C. on the complaint of Khadim Hussain. He requested for some time to recover the alleged detenue. However, on 15-12-1994, the S.H.O./Investigating Officer appeared in Court to state that Mst. Khatoon Bibi had been killed and that the investigation was in progress. Thus, prima facie it seems that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused had murdered Mst. Khatoon Bibi deceased as they apprehended that Mst. Khatoon Bibi would make a statement in favour of Liaqat Ali who had filed the habeas petition I of her recovery and had claimed that Mst. Khatoon was his wife.

9. For what has been discussed above, there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is involved in the murder of Mst. Khatoon Bibi which offence falls in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petition has no merit which is dismissed. N.H.Q./Z-155/L Bail refused.