Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 255 of 1986, decided on 8th May 1986.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused not named in F.I.R. which was based on suspicion‑‑Accused were involved on basis of statements of two witnesses who appeared before Police some months after occurrence‑‑Such witnesses admitting that they had informed complainant of occurrence before registration of F.I.R.‑ Accused, held, were entitled to bail as case was of further inquiry.

Shaikh Rehman Bux for Applicants/ Accused;

Imam Ali Memon for the State.

The applicants, Ghulam Murtaza and his brother Allah Bux were involved in a case of murder of Mst. Husna wife of Allah Bux. However, in the F.I.R. lodged by Molvi Muhammad Hashim, father of Mst. Husna, on 28‑6‑1985, there was no mention of any crime having been committed by any one and the F.I.R. was merely lodged on the basis that Husna sight have taken some poison on account of her quarrel with her mother‑in‑law, Mst. Sharma. However, the post‑mortem report of Mst. Husria was received on 29‑6‑1985 and the same showed that her neck had been broken and, therefore, the case under section 302, P.P.C. was registered. On 7‑8‑1985 further statement of complainant was recorded where he alleged that his daughter had been murdered by the present applicants. This statement was made by him on the basis of the statements of 2 witnesses, Jan Muhammad and Qurban Ali. These two persons in their respective statements recorded on 13‑8‑1985 had stated that they have seen Allah Bux and Ghulam Murtaza dragging Mst . Husna forcibly to the Otaque on the day of incident and they have heard her cries. What, however, is important to note is that these persons stated that they have informed the complainant of this fact before the complainant had gone to lodge the F.I.R. But surprisingly the complainant did not mention this fact in his F.I.R.

In the above circumstances, some doubt is attached to the statements which have been recorded on 7‑8‑1985 and thereafter, and these applicants are, therefore, are entitled to bail as further enquiry is clearly indicated in respect of their involvement. It is therefore, ordered that the applicants be released on bail on providing one surety for each of them in the sum of Rs. 20,000 and P.B. in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Mr. Imam Ali Memon is present for the State and has fairly pointed out the relevant facts in the case.

H.A.K. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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