2011 PLP 1220 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

The present applicant is booked in Crime No.66 of 2009, registered under sections 302, 201, 404, 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Belo Mirpur District Ghotki. The case as set out by the prosecution in the F.I.R. is as under:-- "On 22-9-2009, the complainant A.S.-I. Mohammad Younis Bozdar lodged a report with Police Station Belo Mirpur, stating therein, that on the above date he along with other staff was patrolling duty. When they reached near village Islam Khan Laghari, he received spy information that dead body of lady is floating on the Saeedpur Minor. On receipt of such an information: he proceeded at the place of wardhat and reached at 1400 hours. They found the dead body of unidentified lady, who had received one tire arm injury at her abdomen; police recovered dead body and brought her Civil Hospital Mirpur Mathelo, from where he returned at Police Station and lodged a report on behalf of the State, about 15/16 days back, unknown culprits had murdered unknown lady aged about 24/25 years with fire-arm and thereafter tried to disappear the evidence."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that F.I.R. in the matter was lodged on 22-9-2009 at 1730 hours for incident which took place 10 to 15 days ago. He further argued that five accused persons were arrested in this case namely Mir Hassan, Salam ("the present applicant") Mour, Arbab and Ghulam Hussain. He has further argued that Mour, Arbab and Ghulam Hussain have been let out by the police. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that name of the accused does not appear in the F.I.R. neither any role has been assigned to the present applicant. He further argued that Mir Hassan has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 1-1-2010 in Criminal Bail Application No.1064 of 2009. Learned counsel further argued that statement of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded after 10 to 15 days of recording of F.1.R. He further submitted that Mir 'Hassan and Salam were jointly interrogated. He further submitted that there is no evidence available on record connecting the present applicant with the commission of offence under section 302, P.P.C. The only evidence is available against the present applicant is the statement of witness under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein it has been stated that on his pointation the golden ornaments which the deceased lady was wearing at the time of death were recovered from the shop where it were sold but there is no evidence that applicant had sold the same. Learned counsel in the end argued that it is a fit case in which applicant be admitted to bail as the other co-accused has already been admitted to bail and rule of consistency be followed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Mastoo and others v. State PLD 1977 Kar. 354 Sarfaraz Khan v. The State 1996 SCMR 188 and Mumtaz Ahmed v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 853.

5. Conversely learned A.P.-G. has vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He has supported the order of the trial Court rejecting the bail application of the present applicant. He argued that there is material available on record which connects the applicant with the commission of offence. He further argued that rule of consistency may not be followed as nothing was recovered on the pointation of Mir Hassan but ornaments were recovered from the shop on the statement of present applicant. He further argued that death of an innocent person has taken place and as per prosecution story the present applicant along with others were seen lastly along with the deceased: hence they have to come forward to satisfy about the death of the deceased.

6. Learned A.P.-G. has relied upon the case of Ghulam Abbas v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 569, Janrshed Ahmed v. The State 2006 MLD 288 Bilawal Waheed v. State 2008 MLD 7 and Muhammad Azam and others v. The State 1990 SCMR 1319.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and also the judgments cited at bar.

8. It is settled law that at the bail stage deeper appreciation of the evidence can not be gone into but a bird eye view is to be taken to the record available before the Court to satisfy as to whether the applicant/accused is connected with the commission of offence or not. From the record, it is clear that there is no evidence whatsoever which connects the applicant with the commission of offence under section 302, P.P.C. With regard to the recovery of jwellery from the shop it can not be judged at this stage as to whether the jwellery was sold by the present applicant to the shopkeeper or some one else. Admittedly delay of 10 to 15 days in lodging of F.I.R. has not been explained by time prosecution plausibly. The statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. were also recorded after about 10 to 15 days of lodging of the F.I.R.; while statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. were recorded after about 14 days from the date of lodging of F.I.R., therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case commission of murder of deceased Mst. Sardaran requires further inquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly the applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing of solvent surety in the sure of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand Only) and on execution of personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court, vide short order 'dated 23-7-2010. These are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./S-68/K Bail granted.