Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 794 of 1979, heard on 12th September 1979.

--‑‑S. 497(2)‑Bail‑F. I. R. giving different names with a different motive while alleged eye‑witness involving petitioners as murderers of deceased with different motive and no incriminating article recovered at instance of petitioners‑Sufficient reasons to enquire further into guilt of petitioner, existing, bail allowed, in circumstances‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

G. M. Qureshi for Applicants.

Muzharul Haq, A. A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 12th September 1979.

This is a case under section 302, P. P. C. where the present applicants have been help up and arrested for causing the death of Mst. Singhar, In the F. 1. R. that was lodged on 26‑5‑1979 by Saiful, the father of the deceased Ms& Singhar, it had been alleged that Mst. Singhar had been murdered by Niaz Hussain Khoso and Haroon on account of the fact that Mst. Singhar had refused to allow her daughter Mst. Bibal to go with Maroon and. she told him that she had spent huge amount on treatment‑of Mst. Bibal and he should first pay the amount and then take her away, but in 161, Cr. P. C. statements of Mst. Mumtaz and Mst. Suhagan, who are both the daughters of the deceased Singhar, it has been alleged that these were the present 3 accused who had caused the death of their mother in the night while the complainant was away. The complainant in the F. 1. R. had stated that he had learnt the names of Niaz Hussain Khoso and Haroon as the murderers of Mst. Singhar from his grand daughter Mst. Mumtaz and Suhagan. I make it clear that Niaz Hussain whose name is given in the F. I. R. is different from the present applicant Niaz Hussain Zardari.

2. The net position therefore is that the F. I. R. which is the firs information, gives two different names of Niaz and Haroon with a different motive, while the alleged eye‑witnesses have involved the present applicants as the murderers with a different motive, that Kadoo applicant No. I was having illicit connection with lust. Singhar and when he was restrained from visiting Mst. Singhar, therefore, he caused her murder. There is no recovery of any incriminating article at the instance of the present applicants. There is thus great difference between the two cases.

3. In these circumstances,. I am of the view that there are sufficient reasons to enquire further into the guilt of the present applicants. Mr. Usman Ghani supports the bail plea. on account of the inconsistency between the two cases set up by the prosecution itself,

4. I would, therefore, release the applicants on their furnishing one surety for each with P. R. in the like amount in the sum of Rs.25,000 to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Nawabshah.

Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.