Haday Khan V. The State,
Bench: Abdullah Baloch
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case is about a bail application in a murder case pending before the Balochistan High Court, Sibi Bench. The applicant, Haday Khan, was accused, along with several others, of murdering a man named Rindo in 1996 over an old family enmity, as alleged in the FIR. After investigation, a formal charge (challan) was filed in the trial court, and the trial had already begun. Khan had earlier been denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge and then approached the High Court.
His lawyer argued that Khan was innocent, that he had no specific role assigned to him in the murder, that no witness had directly linked him to the killing, that his long absence (absconsion) from the case for years was not deliberate, and that since investigation was already complete and he was in judicial custody, there was no need to keep him detained further. The state opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the murder charge.
The judge agreed that since Khan's guilt or innocence could only be properly determined once evidence was recorded at trial, and given the lack of clear evidence directly tying him to the shooting, this qualified as a case fitting the "further inquiry" bail standard. The court held that mere long absconsion could not be used to deny bail. As a result, the court granted Khan bail, subject to him providing a surety bond of Rs. 200,000. The court clarified its observations were tentative and would not affect the final outcome of the trial.
یہ کیس بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ، سبی بینچ میں زیر سماعت ایک قتل کے مقدمے میں ضمانت کی درخواست سے متعلق ہے۔ درخواست گزار، حدے خان، پر دیگر کئی ملزمان کے ساتھ یہ الزام تھا کہ انہوں نے 1996 میں رندو نامی شخص کو قتل کیا، جیسا کہ ایف آئی آر میں پرانی خاندانی دشمنی کی بنیاد پر بیان کیا گیا تھا۔ تحقیقات کے بعد ٹرائل کورٹ میں باقاعدہ چالان پیش کیا گیا تھا اور مقدمے کی سماعت شروع ہو چکی تھی۔ خان کی ضمانت پہلے ہی ایڈیشنل سیشن جج نے مسترد کر دی تھی، جس کے بعد انہوں نے ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔
ان کے وکیل نے دلائل دیے کہ خان بے قصور ہیں، قتل میں ان کا کوئی مخصوص کردار مقرر نہیں تھا، کسی گواہ نے انہیں براہِ راست قتل سے نہیں جوڑا، اور ان کا کئی سالوں تک مقدمے سے غائب رہنا (فرار) جانستہ نہیں تھا۔ نیز، چونکہ تحقیقات مکمل ہو چکی ہیں اور وہ عدالتی حراست میں ہیں، اس لیے انہیں مزید حراست میں رکھنے کی ضرورت نہیں۔ ریاست نے ق
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
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.