2006 PLP 1286 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.

Office objection overruled.

2. The applicant, a police constable, is facing trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar in Sessions Case No.271 of 2004 Crime No.18 of 2004 Police Station Thariri Mohabat. According to prosecution case the applicant was seen along with other police officials near RD No.27 where he fired at deceased Khadim Hussain nephew of complainant Saeed Khan with K.K. causing injury and thereafter removed the injured from place of incident who subsequently died and was found in Taluka Hospital. Mr. Muhammad Saleem GN Jessar, Advocate for the applicant has submitted that one day earlier a police encounter took place. The F.I.R., whereof was lodged and deceased Khadim Hussain, who was dacoit was killed in the police encounter and the dead body was also recovered in the said police encounter-case. In support of his contention that F:I.R. in this case is a counter-blast to the F.I.R. in police encounter case, he has submitted that day of incident in both the incidents is shown as 31-1-2004. According to F.I.R., in this case incident took place at 9-15 p.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on the second day at 5-30 p.m. He has pointed out that this F.I.R. was lodged after lodging of the F.I.R. in support of police encounter and after the complainant came to know that his nephew has died in police encounter and his dead body is lying in Taluka Hospital. The learned counsel has further submitted that according to mashirnama of place of incident no blood-stains were found and no blood-stained earth was recovered. The statement of witnesses were recorded after four months and one official SMG was recovered from the possession of applicant which is not the weapon alleged to have been used in the commission of offence. According to F.I.R., one K.K. was used for the commission of offence. He has further submitted that the accused in custody for a period of two years and as he was arrested on 15-6-2004 and still there is no chance of progress in the case as even charge has not been framed. He has submitted that there are counter-versions and therefore, it is a case of further enquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned State counsel has opposed the bail application contending that since accused is a police official, therefore, the police has recorded the statements of witnesses after a considerable delay. He has, however, conceded that no blood-stained earth was found from the place of incident. I am of the opinion that since there are counter-version and there is no explanation for delay in lodging of F.I.R. therefore, it is a case of further enquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that despite lapse of two years even charge has not been framed, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant is therefore, granted bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./A-71/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.