IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.2172 of 2024
[ Muhammad Attiq Alam versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
03.03.2025
M/s Umer Farooq & Sardar Mushtaq
Ahmed, advocate for applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh
Mr. Nasir Mehmood, advocate for
complainant
DSP Ghulam Safdar of CTD Sindh
Karachi
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicant/accused Muhammad
Attiq Alam son of Idrees Ahmed seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.201/2023,
registered at P.S. Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi, for offence under Sections 302,
34, PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned trial Court vide order
dated 07.09.2024.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that on 21.03.2023, while returning after offering Fajar
prayer, complainant received information that two unknown motorcyclists fired
upon his brother Abdul Qayyum in front of his House C-1, Block-9,
Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi, he rushed to the place of incident where he saw that
his brother Abdul Qayyum was lying in street, blood was oozing from his head
and he passed away. Thereafter, he lodged FIR against unknown persons for assassination
of his brother for unknown reasons.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case for mala fide intentions and ulterior motives;
that presence of applicant is not shown at the place of incident and mere role
of conspiracy has been attributed to applicant, which requires further inquiry
in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC; that prosecution has failed to prove the
connection of applicant with main accused; that no ingredients for making
conspiracy has been made out; that there is delay in recording statements of
PWs. Finally, they prayed for grant of bail to applicant. For such contentions,
they relied upon the cases of Mst. Hajira Bibi alias Seema and others versus
Abdul Qaseem and another (2023 SCMR 870) and Mamaras versus State and others
(PLD 2009 SC 678). However, they expressed that they have no knowledge about
abscondence of applicant/accused.
4. On the
other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by learned
counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to applicant on
the ground that this is case of conspiracy and he is main accused, who hatched
conspiracy and hired two persons, namely, Tanveer Abbas and Ali Akbar, they came
at the scene of offence and fired upon Abdul Qauyyum, in result whereof latter
succumbed to his injuries; that after registration of FIR complainant
specifically shown doubt about conspiracy hatched by present applicant/accused
over property dispute between deceased and present applicant; that applicant
who is police inspector remained absconder for 18 months and trial Court has
declared him proclaimed offender; that it has come on record that
applicant/accused had paid Rs.250,000/- as advance to the co-accused to commit
the alleged murder of deceased Abdul Qayyum and out of Rs.250,000/- co-accused
disclosed that they purchased 125 Motorcycle, same was recovered and is the
case property; that PWs identified accused Ali Akbar before Judicial Magistrate
in identification parade test. IO present in Court submits that investigation
of instant case was transferred from ordinary police to CTD and after hectic
efforts CTD police arrested the present applicant after 1 ½ years of incident.
Learned Addl: Prosecutor General Sindh as well as counsel for complainant
argued that alleged offence carries capital punishment and it falls within the
ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC, therefore, applicant/accused
is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh as well as
counsel for complainant and perused the material available on record.
6. It
is the matter of record that brother of deceased Abdul Qayyum loged FIR against
unknown persons and on the next date concerned police recorded his statement
under Section 161, Cr.PC in which he has shown doubt about involvement of
present applicant along with other accused in the commission of offence. During
investigation police arrested co-accused Tanveer Abbas and Ali Akbar, who
disclosed before the IO that they were hired by applicant due to dispute over
property with the deceased. Police recovered crime weapon from their possession
and they have put to identification parade test before the Magistrate whereby
PWs identified accused Ali Akber and did not identify Tanveer Abbas for the
reason that he was wearing helmet on motorcycle at the time of incident. During
investigation police also collected CRD of main accused, which connects the main
accused with co-accused. This is a murder case wherein it has been alleged that
conspiracy has been hatched by present applicant, who is inspector in Sindh
Police and remained absconder for 1 ½ years, after the alleged incident,
without any plausible explanation. Counsel for applicant argued that they are
unaware about abscondence of present applicant and trial Court declared him
proclaimed offence. Since the applicant/accused has already remained absconder
in the cases. Long abscondence for 18 months caused delay in trail which is
sufficient ground for dismissal of his bail plea. CTD investigated the matter
and fully implicated him in the alleged offence as mastermind. Alleged offence
comes with the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC, which carries
capital punishment. Sufficient matter is available on record, which connects
the present applicant with the commission of alleged offence. Case law referred
by the counsel for applicant is on different footing. No case of further
inquiry is made out, therefore, instant criminal bail application is dismissed.
7. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the
applicant/accused on merits.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS