2014 P Cr (PLP)

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.

The applicant seeks his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.6 of 2013 dated 11-1-2013 registered by ASI Ameer Ali Shar, on behalf of the State, for the offence under sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Gambat, District Khairpur.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 10-1-2013 at 0700 hours one Altaf Hussain Ujjan informed the police that Saith Ali son of Ghulam Qadir Ujjan, the ex-husband of his sister, namely, Mst. Samina aged about 30 years, entered into his house and fired pistol shots on her sister and killed her; that he requested police to complete the legal formalities for handing over the dead body of deceased lady to them and further undertook to come at Police Station for lodging F.I.R. after performing her burial ceremony; that due to humanitarian sympathy police handed over the dead body of deceased Mst. Samina after conducting postmortem; that it was later-on transpired that the husband of deceased Mst.Samina had already divorced her 2 years back and she was residing along with her three infant children in the house of her father Allah Warryo along with her brother Altaf Hussain Ujjan and she was serving as Peon in a private School; that as she used to come late in the house and talk on Mobile Phone at odd hours for that her brother Altaf Hussain at the night of 9th January, 2013 beaten her and consulted with his relatives Ustad Abdul Ghani Ujjan, Aacher Ujjan and others thereafter, he hatched conspiracy to kill her sister Mst. Samina with the motive that the allegation of her murder would be levelled upon her ex-husband Saith Ali, who had divorced her, and would take his land as penalty; that with such ulterior motive, he along with one Aacher son of Wali Muhammad Ujjan, in the night of 10th January, 2013, fired upon Mst. Samina and committed her murder and then he called his community people and made a 'FAISLA' by which Saith Ali and his father Ghulam Qadir have been penalized according to the motive of applicant/accused and, therefore, he was reluctant to lodge F.I.R., hence instant F.I.R. was lodged on behalf of the State.

3. I have heard Mr. Manzoor Hussain Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Zulifquar Ali Jatoi, learned DPG for the State. Latter opposes the bail of the applicant/accused.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has mainly argued that there is one day delay in F.I.R. and the incident is unseen. The applicant/accused had himself informed the police about the incident but the I.O. falsely involved him on the instigation of ex-husband of deceased Mst. Samina, namely, Saith Ali Ujjan, who had divorced her 2 years back because he wanted to contract second marriage, which was not acceptable to deceased Mst. Samina. He has further argued that the mother of applicant/accused, namely, Mst. Pannah Khatoon had filed an application under sections 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur, which was transferred to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, who directed the SHO Police Station Gambat for registration of F.I.R. against proposed accused Saith Ali and others but on the contrary F.I.R. was registered against the present applicant/accused. However, she is ready to file affidavit to the effect that applicant/accused is innocent.

5. It appears from the perusal of the material placed on record that deceased Mst. Samina, who was mother of three infant children, was murdered in the house of her father where the applicant/accused also resides and apparently he killed her on the ages old notion of 'KARI'. The specific role of causing death of Mst. Samina has been ascribed to applicant/accused. It further appears that the Police has recorded the statements of Mst. Pannah Khatoon, the mother of applicant/accused and deceased Mst. Samina, and Ishtiaq Ahmed under section 161, Cr.P.C., both have categorically nominated the applicant/accused in the commission of offence. It also appears that soon after the commission of offence, the police visited the place of incident and such memo of site inspection was prepared at the spot and the dead-body was dispatched for postmortem. It transpires from the perusal of postmortem report that the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock as result of fire-arm injuries. The ocular as well as medical and circumstantial evidence available on the record, connect the applicant/accused in the commission of crime. So far the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant/accused for filing of the application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. by Mst. Pannah Khatoon, are concerned, no F.I.R. has been registered till date against those accused persons, whom she wishes to implicate in the commission of offence, rather in her statement made by her on a stamp paper in the trial Court on 19-1-2013, she has supported the facts as narrated in the F.I.R. As such there is sufficient material-record to connect the applicant/accused in the commission of offence.

6. The factum of filing of affidavit by the mother of deceased Mst. Samina and applicant/accused in his favour, itself, speaks about contumacious conduct of the applicant/accused, who has been found in Police investigation as an actual culprit of murder of his real sister that he is making every efforts to save his skin from the case. In the case of Nazeer Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 347), the trend that eye-witnesses take sommersault and give statements which are different from the prosecution case and file affidavit at the stage of hearing of bail application with the intention of creating doubt in the prosecution case to enable the accused to get the bail, was deprecated.

7. It is well-settled that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law. The principles governing the grant of pre-arrest bail are that the applicant/accused has to show that he has been implicated in the case falsely and his arrest being tainted with mala fide and ulterior motive such as humiliation and harassment at the hands of Police with intention to cause irreparable injury to the reputation and liberty of a person. The above ingredients are also missing in the present case.

8. For the foregoing reasons I am of the considered view that the applicant/accused is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the bail application stands dismissed.

9. Above observations are tentative in nature and the trial Court may not be influenced by the same at the trial.

10. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 11-9-2013 whereby the bail application was dismissed. HBT/A-118/K Bail refused.