2019 Y L R Note 96
[Balochistan (Sibi Bench)]
Before Abdullah Baloch, J
HADAY KHAN---Applicant
Versus
STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. (s) 139 of 2018, decided on 26th October,
2018.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl -i-amd, common intention---
Bail, grant of ---Further inquiry--- Absconsion--- Effect --- Completion of investigation ---
Accused, in judicial custody--- Scope ---Accused was charged for committing murder ---
Chall an of the case had been submitted in the Trial Court ---Accused had been remanded to
judicial custody, the Trial Court had commenced with the trial ---Guilt or innocence of the
accused was yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence ---Concession
of bail could not be withheld due to long absconsion of accused---Accused had successfully
made out a case of further inquiry---Application for grant of bail was accepted, in
circumstances.
Rizwan Ali Soomro for Applicant.
Jamil Akhtar, Additio nal P.G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 25th October, 2018.
ORDER
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---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, P.P.C.
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 old 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 appli cation for grant of post
arrest bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali
(hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court"), but the same was rejected, vide order dated 16th October 2018. Whereafter, the instant application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the accused -applicant contended that the accused -applicant 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 co mpromise; 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 be en assigned to the accused-
applicant and he has been dragged in the instant case just to harass 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 again st 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, m eaning 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 enti tled
for grant of bail.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their valuable assistance gone
through the record. Besides, after concluding investigation in the matter, challan of the case has been submitted in the trial Court, the applicant (accused) has been remande d, 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 ba il 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) subj ect to furnishing surety in the sum of
Rs. 200,000/ - (Rupees Two 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 sa me shall not
influence the merits of the case.
SA/54/Bal.This 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.