ORDER SHEET
_____________________________________________________
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
_____________________________________________________
For hearing.
Notice issued to A.G. Sindh for 13.7.2007.
13.8.2007.
Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan for applicant.
Mr. Asmatullah Khan Niazi State counsel.
__________
Applicant Muhammad Akbar S/O Umar Hayat has applied for post arrest bail in Crime No. 342/2002 under Sections 302, 148, 149, 109 PPC read with Section 512 Cr.P.C. register at P.S. Site, Karachi.
The prosecution case unfolded in the First Information Report is that on 10.10.2001 Mst. Fauzia Parveen lodged report that she along with her husband Zafar Iqbal son of Dost Muhammad Petti Officer in Pakistan Navy returned to their home after night walk, at about 8.45 PM at the gate of Labour Square a black colour car appeared and a person of middle height called the complainant’s husband who was holding a pistol and caused fire arm injury on the upper side of his nose as a result whereof he succumbed to injures. The motive behind the incident as described in the First Information Report was that on account of the first marriage of the deceased Zafar Iqbal son of Dost Muhammad there was a sever enmity which resulted in his death. After registration of the First Information Report in three subsequent investigations as suggested by the learned counsel one Muhammad Akbar S/O Akram Ali was connected, had been shown as absconder however in subsequent investigation the accused connected in the commission of the crime arrested from Jehlum namely Umar Hayat and others were released under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan learned counsel for appellant has contended that the complainant had involved a single offender in the commission of the offence, to whom she could identify after the arrest. Unfortunately in three successive investigations conducted by the police number of accused were joined released after the investigation were over however at one stage applicant with the parentage name of Akram Ali was connected in the commission of the crime being absconder which manifestly suggests malafides on the part of the police. It is next urged that co-accused Zafar Iqbal to whom the fatal role is attributed has been admitted on bail by this Court in Cr. Bail Application No. 13/2004 vide order dated 27.1.2004 whereas the case of the applicant is on better footings as the complainant Mst. Fauzia Parveen in her testimony before the court has connected the applicant with last seen evidence.
Mr. Asmatullah Khan Niazi learned counsel appearing for State has opposed the grant of bail plea on the premises that inadvertently the parentage name of Muhammad Akbar was shown in the challan stands rectified through the statement of Umar Hayat. Much of the emphasis has been laid on the testimony of the complainant Mst. Fauzia Parveen suggests that prima facie the applicant is involved in the commission of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life.
I have considered the arguments advanced at bar.
Prima facie it is a case of single fatal injury caused to the deceased Zafar Iqbal. Injury has been attributed to co-accused Zafar Iqbal S/O Ghulam Sarwar. Only role attributed by the complainant is that he was present on the place of occurrence in the vehicle when the alleged offence was committed. The statement of witnesses Umar Hayat, Allah Yar and Muhammad Khan recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C also corroborates the testimony of complainant. The applicant was arrested in the month of October 2006 subsequent thereof the challan has been re-framed and the case had been set on trial.
In any view of the matter, the case against the applicant requires further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. therefore he deserves concession of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case applicant Muhammad Akbar S/O Umar Hayat is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
J U D G E