PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 652
[Balochistan High Court, Sibi Bench]
Present: ABDULLAH BALOCH , J.
HADAY KHAN --Applicant
versus
STATE --Respondent
Crl. Bail Appln. No. (s)139 of 2018, decided on 26.10.2018.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) --
----S. 497(2) --Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34 --Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry --
Investigation, challan was submitted, the applicant (accused) remanded to judicial custody, while after
taking cognizance the trial has commenced w ith the trial of the case --Held: Guilt or innocence of the
applicant is yet to determine by the trial Court after recording evidence, hence due to long absconsion concession of bail cannot be withheld --Counsel for the applicant (accused) has successfully m ade out a
case of further inquiry, Court inclined to accept the instant application and grant bail to the applicant.
[P. 653] A & B
Mr. Rizwan Ali Soomro, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Jamil Akhtar, Additional P.G. for State.
Date of hearing: 25.10.2018.
O
RDER
This order disposes of Criminal Bail Application No. 139 of 2018, whereby the applicant, Haday Khan son
of Allah Yar, is seeking bail in FIR No. 27 of 1996 dated 6th August 1996, Levies Station, Tamboo under
Section 302 read with Section 34, PPC.
2. Facts of the case are that on 6th August 1996 lodged FIR No. 27 of 1996 on the complaint of
Elahi Bakhsh under above mentioned Sections at Levies Station Tamboo to the effect that at the night of
incident his uncle, namely; Rindo son of Kheri was sleeping in his home while accused Kamal, Khair Jan,
Shah Nawaz, Tangwani son of Zangi, Haday son of Allay Yar and Bari son of Hotan by Caste Shalwani Bugti committed the murder of his uncle by means of firing, the motive behind the incident was stated that there is o ld enmity.
3. After usual investigation, challan was submitted in the trial Court and the trial was commenced.
In the meantime, the applicant (accused) filed an application for grant of post arrest bail the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Naseerabad at D era Murad Jamali (hereinafter referred as, “the trial
Court”), but the same was rejected, vide order dated 16
th October 2018. Whereafter, the instant
application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the accused -applicant contended that the accused -applic ant is innocent and has
not committed any offence whatsoever in nature; that in the instant case the main accused has been acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise; that accused -applicant was not aware about the FIR
and his absconsion was neither deliberate nor intentional, when he came to know about the FIR lodged
against him he has surrendered himself at the mercy of the Court; that no specific role has been assigned to the accused -applicant and he has been dragged in the instant case just to ha rass him; that
neither there is any eye- witness that accused -applicant had killed by the fire of the applicant nor any
direct or indirect evidence is available against him with the commission of alleged offence even since 1996; hence the case of applicant (accused) falls within the ambit of further inquiry; that investigation in the matter has been completed and applicant (accused) were remanded to judicial custody, meaning thereby that he is not required for the purpose of investigation or probe as such, the applicant (accused)
is entitled for concession of bail.
5. Learned Additional Prosecutor General stated that the applicant -accused is involved in heinous crime
of heinous murder, thus the alleged offences are not only non -bailable, but also carries punishment for
death or life imprisonment; that sufficient incriminatory evidence is available on record connecting him
with the commission of crime, thus he is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their valuable assistance gone through the record. Besides, after conducting investigation in the matter, challan of the case has been submitted in the trial
Court, , the applicant (accused) has been remanded to judicial custody, while after taking cognizance the
trial has commenced with the trial of the case. The guilt or innocence of the applicant is yet to
determine by the trial Court after recording evidence, hence due to long absconsion concession of bail
cannot be withheld.
7. Perusing the record tentatively, the counsel for the applicant (accused) has successfully made
out a case of further inquiry, therefor, I am inclined to accept the instant application and grant bail to
the applicant (accused) subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000/ - (Rupees tw o Hundred
Thousand) with P.R. bond of the like amount to the - satisfaction of the trial Court or Deputy Registrar of
this Court.
The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and same shall not influence the merits of
the case.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.