ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No. S-615 of 2022

(Barkat Ali Shah Vs. The State)

For hearing of Bail Application.

06-03-2023.

Mr. Shafique Ahmed Leghari, advocate for applicant.

Complainant Fareed Ahmed in person.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy P.G for the State

>>>>>…<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J. It is alleged that the applicant committed death of his wife Mst. Fahmeeda by strangulating her throat, for that he was booked and reported upon by the police.

2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge/(MCTC-I) Sukkur has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy with him its matrimonial dispute; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about 12 hours; the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased has been conducted with the delay of 6/7 hours, which prima-facie suggest that the complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident and it was the case of suicide which has been given cover of murder by the complainant party; therefore, the applicant entitled to be admitted to post arrest bail on point of further enquiry. He relied upon case of Resham Khan and another Vs. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another (2021 SCMR 2011.

4. Learned DPG for the State who is assisted by the complainant has opposed for grant of post arrest bail to applicant by contending that he is named in the FIR with specific role of causing death of the deceased by strangulating her throat. He relied upon cases of 2022 SCMR 1066 (Dilawar Ali Vs. The State and another), 2012 SCMR 556 (Mumtaz Vs. The State) and 2012 SCMR 707 (Muhammad Afzal Vs. The State)

5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

6. The applicant is named in FIR with specific allegation that he committed death of his wife Mst. Fahmeeda by strangulating her throat within sight of the complainant and his witnesses and then made his escape good from the place of incident. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy with him its dispute over matrimonial affairs. The head sheet, which allegedly was used by the applicant in commission of incident, has also been secured by the police from the place of incident. The delay of about 12 hours in lodgment of FIR has been explained plausibly in FIR itself, it was natural in case like present one and same even otherwise could not be resolved by this Court at this State. Delay of about 6/7 hours in conducting post mortem over the dead body of deceased is not enough to conclude that the complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident. Nothing has been brought on record, which may suggest that it was case of suicide and then has been given cover of murder. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged.

7. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstance; in that case the main reason for admitting the accused to bail was that they were not sent for trial by the police by placing their names in column No.II of the challan sheet.

8. In view of above, it is concluded safely that no case for grant of post arrest bail to the applicant is made out; consequently, the instant Crl. Bail Application is dismissed.

Judge

Nasim/P.A.