Order Sheet
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Bail Appln. No. S- 263 of 2022.
Date Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge
1.For orders on office objection as flag A.
2.For hearing of bail application.
25.7.2022.
Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P. G.
=====
O R D E R
ADNAL-UL-KARIM MEMON-J. Through the captioned bail application, applicant Mehrab Bangulani is seeking post-arrest bail in F.I.R No.113 of 2021, registered with Police Station Karampur, for the offenses under Sections 302, 311, 120-B, 34 PPC, inter-alia on the ground that the relatives of the deceased Mst.Sumul Khatoon have exonerated the applicant from the alleged charge of murder of the deceased, by swearing affidavits; that the alleged incident has not been seen by the police, besides as per narration of police they saw an old lady was present at the spot, however, she has not been cited as a witness to substantiate the claim of police.
2. It is alleged in the FIR by the complainant Manzoor Ahmed, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police that on the day of the incident, he alongwith the staff was available at the above Police Station when they received spy information that one Mst.Sumul Khatoon has been killed by his real brother in connivance with his accomplices on the false allegation of Karo-Kari/SiyahKari/karap. On such spy information, the police party reached the spot, where they found the dead body of a young girl lying on a cot and an old lady was sitting beside her, who on inquiry disclosed that the deadbody is of Mst.Sumul Khatton daughter of Muhammad Hayat Bangulani who has been killed on the false allegation of karap by accused Mehrab, Hidayatullah @ Haleem both sons of Muhammad Hayat, and one Loung, all bycaste Bangulani. Complainant party examined the dead body and found firearm injuries on her upper left arm, left back, above naval two injures left side belly (hole type) and blood was oozing. Due to the non-availability of private mashirs, HC Muhammad Bux, and PC Altaf Hussain were associated as mashirs, relevant mahirnamas, and Danishtnama were prepared under signatures of mashirs and the deadbody was shifted to the hospital for postmortem. In the meanwhile, the complainant knew that one Abdul Ghaffar son of Khadim Hussain Bangulani had also sustained firearm injuries in the said incident. Later on,the complainant party returned to the police station and waited for the parents of the deceased Mst. Sumul Khatoon to lodge F.I.R but nobody came up for recording FIR, therefore, the instant FIR under Sections 302, 311, 120-B, 34 PPC was lodged on behalf of the State to the above effect on 5.12.2021.
3. After registration of FIR, the investigation was followed and the applicant was arrested, such recovery of firearm used in the alleged crime was made; and, finally, the applicant was sent up to face trial before a competent Court of Law, where a post-arrest bail application was filed on his behalf but his bail plea was declined by the learned trial court vide order dated 30.04.2022, giving rise to filing of the instant bail application.
4. Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, learned Counsel for the applicant, contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police enmity; that the story as narrated in the aforesaid crime seems to be concocted, managed, and engineered; that there is the inordinate delay of about 25 days in the lodgment of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished, which caused serious doubt into the veracity of prosecution case. Learned counsel emphasized that admittedly this is an unwitnessed incident as none ofthe complainant and his witnesses or mashirs witnessed the actual occurrence of the murder of the deceased lady. He further contended that none from the family of the deceased came up for registration of FIR, but later on one Hafeezullah, Mst.Khanzadi and injured P.W Abdul Ghaffar recorded their statements that they had allegedly witnessed the incident whereby accused Raheem, Tok Ali, Sadik, Thangao, and Mehrab caused the murder of the deceased by firing upon her and also caused firearm injuries to injured P.W Abdul Ghaffar, thus it is the case of two versions, one given by police and another by said private persons, therefore, it is yet to be determined at the trial and case requires further inquiry. He further argued that section 311 PPC was wrongly applied in the case as the deceased lady was not declared kari by their family but she was done to death by their rival party i.e. accused Raheem and others to fix their old blood feud. He further pointed out that the legal heirs of the deceased lady have also sworn their affidavit in favor of the applicant before the learned trial Court and extended no objection to the grant of bail. On all these scores learned counsel contended that the prosecution case against the present applicant calls for further inquiry and he is entitled to concession of bail. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases reported as Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241), Muhammad Najeeb v. The State (2009 SCMR 448), and Muhammad Murad v. The State (PLD2012 Sindh 42) and further argued that ingredients of alleged offenses are yet to be determined in trial. Learned counsel further submitted that ingredients of section 311 PPC (fasad-fil-arz) are missing in the present case, thus section 311 PPC is not applicable in the present case. He has further submitted that the alleged recovery of the pistol, if any, has been allegedly shown, is wrong as nothing has been recovered from the applicant. However F.I.R suggests another weapon that requires a case of further inquiry. He lastly prayed for allowing the instant bail application.
5. Learned Addl. P.G opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant had preplanned the murder of the deceased. He contended that the compromise submitted by the legal heirs of deceased Mst.Samul Khatoon, allegedly effected outside the Court, cannot be considered at this stage, as none has the right to take law into his own hands and start killing innocent woman on the pretext of Karo-Kari/Siyah-Kari. He next submitted that sufficient material, including recovery of a firearm, is available against the applicant to connect him to the aforesaid crime, thus he is not entitled to post-arrest bail.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record and case law cited at the bar.
7. I have noticed that the learned trial Court has observed while rejecting the bail application of the applicant that in several cases the killing of the innocent wife, sister, and other female relatives, on the allegation of 'siyahkari', has become a routine practice, rather a fashion, and it is a high time to discourage such kind of unwarranted and shocking practice, resulting in murder in the name of so-called honor killing. Prima-facie the ocular as well as Medical and other evidence available on the record, connect the applicant in the commission of the alleged crime. The factum of filing of affidavits in favor of the applicant by the relatives of the deceased, speaks about the contumacious conduct of the applicant, who has been found in a police investigation as an actual culprit of the murder of his deceased sister; and, prima-facie accused in such a case makes every effort to save his skin from the alleged crime. The trend is that eyewitnesses take somersault and give statements that are different from the prosecution case and file affidavits at the stage of hearing of bail application to create doubt in the prosecution case to enable the accused to get the bail, such practice has been deprecated by the Honorable Supreme Court from time to time.
8. I am of the tentative view, that even the murder based on 'Ghairat' does not furnish a valid ground for bail. The killing of innocent people, especially women on the pretext of 'siyahkari' is illegal and unconstitutional. Prima-facie the allegations of murder of his sister on the pretext of Kar-Kari/Siyah-Kari has been leveled against the applicant and the police have no ostensible enmity with the applicant to book him in the alleged crime/ murder of the deceased falsely. Primarily, nobody has any right nor can anybody be allowed to take law into his own hands to take the life of anybody in the name of 'Ghairat'. Neither the law of the land nor religion permits so-called honor killing which amounts to murder (Qatl-e-Amd) simpliciter. On the aforesaid proposition, I am guided by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 96).
9. The tentative assessment of the available record suggests that no case is made out for the grant of concession of post-arrest bail to the applicant and thus the instant bail application is hereby dismissed.
10. The observation made hereinabove is tentative in nature which shall not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.
J U D G E