2017 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.

Applicants Muhammad Ahmar, Muhammad Owais, Mst. Shahida and Muhammad Asim seek pre-arrest bail in Case Crime No.79/2014 Police Station Landhi under section 302/34, P.P.C., registered. The applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 31.7.2015 and now the matter is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2. The complainant Usman Ghani lodged FIR of Crime No.79/2014 on 16.4.2015 at 1950 hours stating therein that his younger sister namely Saima was got married with applicant Muhammad Ahmar in the year 2013. On 02.4.2014 the complainant was present in his house, at 1030 hours, Mst. Hamida alias Uroosa, who had arranged the engagement of Saima, informed him through cell telephone that Mst. Saima was got admitted in the hospital at Korangi No.5. On receiving phone call, complainant along with his mother and sisters went to Sindh Government Hospital Korangi No.5, when reached there they found the dead body of Saima, having sustained strangulation marks on her neck. Applicants were already present in hospital. After postmortem, the dead body was received by the complainant for burial. After 14 days, complainant lodged the FIR against applicants/accused disclosing the motive behind the incident to be strained relations between the husband and wife (applicant Muhammad Ahmed and deceased Saima).

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the inquest report of the deceased was prepared on the day of the incident which was signed by the complainant and his brother-in-law Asif wherein death is shown to have been caused by committing suicide. He further submits that the memo on place of occurrence, prepared on 03.4.2014 was also signed by the independent witnesses, namely, Sabir Ali and Tanveer Ashraf wherein it is clearly mentioned that the deceased had committed suicide; that the applicant Ahmar and his brother Owais were on duty at the time of incident; that there is no direct evidence against the present applicants; that no one had seen them while committing the alleged offence; that there is delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR which clearly shows false implication of the applicants after consultation, thus the case of applicants requires further inquiry, therefore, they are entitled to confirmation of bail. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the cases of Munawar Hussain v. The State (2007 YLR 404), Nazar Muhammad and 2 others v. The State (2012 PCr.LJ 430), Said Akbar and another v. Gul Akbar and another (1996 SCMR 931), Malik Muhammad Saleheen and others v. Arshad Siddiq and 2 others (1997 SCMR 1829), Alam Chand alias Aloomal and 2 others v. Jamil Ahmad and another (2008 SCMR 980), Ch. Basharat Karim v. Muhammad Ishfaq Chandoor and another (2007 SCMR 1546) and Iftikhar Hussain and another v. State (2004 SCMR 1185).

4. Learned A.P.G. assisted by the counsel for the complainant contends that delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, even otherwise it ipso facto is no ground for grant of bail; that the names of the present applicants appear in the FIR with specific role of causing death of the deceased by strangulation her due to strained relations between applicants and deceased, as such, they are not entitled to extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Rab Nawaz and 2 others v. The State (2015 PCr.LJ 1531).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the citations relied upon by them so also record so made available. In case of Rab Nawaz and others (supra) bail plea of accused persons in two murder cases of honour killing, in one case of murder of male deceased showing annoyance on fight, was promptly lodged on the same day and the other case of lady deceased was lodged by police on behalf of State after 07 days showing honour killing committed in their presence, was declined by not accepting the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, but the facts of the present case are quite different from above referred case. In this case there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and FIR reveals that it was lodged after 14 days on suspicion of the complainant that the applicants had committed the murder of the deceased Mst. Saima. It is an admitted fact on record that in the proceedings conducted under section 174, Cr.P.C. the inquest report was signed by the complainant himself and was present with dead body but no explanation has been furnished for lodging the FIR after 14 days, even no source is disclosed as to who had seen the accused while strangulating the deceased. No defence wound is shown in the medical report, as such, this is a case of two versions, one is given by the complainant in his FIR that the deceased was done to death by the present applicants in furtherance of their common object and the other is in 174, Cr.P.C. report which reveals that the deceased had committed the suicide, which of the versions is correct, is to be seen at the trial, which makes the case of applicants as that of further inquiry and the grounds governing the grant of pre-arrest bail attract to the case of applicants, therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. 7(sic.) Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced of the same at trial. ZC/M-92/Sindh Pre-arrest bail confirmed.