IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.345 of 2025
[ Husnain alias Husnain Nawaz versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
11.03.2025
Mr. Ashiq Muhammad, advocate for
applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh
Mr. Asadullah Memon, advocate for
complainant
SIP/IO Huzoor Bux of PS Malir Cantt.
------------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.—Applicant/accused Husnain alias Husnain Nawaz seeks
post arrest bail in FIR No.389/2024, registered at P.S. Malir Cantt., Karachi, for
offence under Sections 302, 201, 34, PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned
trial Court vide order dated 21.01.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that on 10.09.2024 at about 0040 hours, brother of
complainant namely Ghulam Mustafa, after having closed the Milk Shop, situated
at Jiddah Hotel, Superhighway, Kathore, Karachi went along with Hasnain and
Taufeeq in their Car No.BNQ-586, Suzuki Cultus, thereafter, Cell phone of
Ghulam Mustafa continuously switched off. Later on, at about 1330 hours
complainant received information that dead body of Ghulam Mustafa had been found
in front of Sohni Poultry Farm, Malir Cantt. Superhighway. After inspection of
dead body by SIP Nazeer Hussain, dead body was brought to JPMC for autopsy.
After postmortem, dead body was handed over to complainant. On inquiries from
witnesses, complainant learnt that Ghulam Mustafa was taken away by Hasnain and
Taufeeq in their car, hence on 11.09.2024 at 1530 hours complainant lodged FIR
at P.S. Malir Cantt. against them for murder of his brother Ghulam Mustafa by
way of firing upon his neck for unknown reason.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that before registration of FIR, statement of
complainant was recorded by police wherein he has not implicated present
applicant and later on, on next day, he registered FIR whereby he implicated
the present applicant as a suspect; that there is no direct evidence against
the applicant; that extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; that pistol and car belong to late father of
applicant; that pistol and car have foisted upon applicant in order to
strengthen the case; that there is negative DNA report and so far as the FSL
report is concerned, it has been managed by police; sufficient grounds are
available to make out a case of further inquiry in terms of Section 497, Cr.PC.
He relied upon following reported cases:
1. 2016
PCr.LJ 297 (Nazar Gul vs. The State and another)
2. 2017
YLR 692 (Abdul Ghaffar versus The State)
3. 2005
YLR 3357 (Ali Muhammad versus The State)
4. 2013
MLD 1615 (Shujaat Hashmi alis SHuja vs. The State)
5. 2004
PCr.LJ 649 (Muhammad Hassan versus The State)
6. 2016
PCr.LJ 994 (Javed Iqbal & Another versus The State)
7. 2018
YLR 2363 (Kaleemullah versus The State & Another)
4. On the
other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by counsel
for complainant vehemently opposed for grant of bail to applicant on the ground
that there is last seen evidence against applicant and his brother Taufeeq that
they have taken away the deceased in their car and later on his dead body was
recovered; that during investigation applicant was arrested and on his
pointation crime weapon and car were recovered; police also recovered blood
from the digi of car and sent the sample for DNA, which is positive; that shoes
of deceased were also recovered from car on the pointation of applicant; that
alleged offence is heinous and carries capital punishment, therefore, applicant
is not entitled for grant of 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. No
doubt, alleged offence is unseen but there is last seen evidence. During
investigation applicant was arrested and on his pointation crime weapon and car
used in the commission of alleged offence, which belong to the late father of
applicant, were recovered on his pointation. IO sent crime weapon for FSL and
the report is positive. IO also obtained blood from Digi of Car and sent the sample
for DNA which matched with DNA of deceased. Motive has also come on surface
against applicant on the issue of honour killing. Sufficient material is
available on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence, which
carries capital punishment and instant case comes within the prohibitory clause
of Section 497, Cr.PC. No case for grant of post arrest bail is made out, as
such, instant criminal bail application is dismissed.
It is well settled proposition of law that every case has its own merits
and it should be decided on its own merits, therefore, case law relied upon by
the counsel for applicant is on different footings.
7. Needless
to mention here that 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