The applicants had separately moved two bail applications in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sanghar, which were rejected on 3-1-1978. They have now moved this Court for their release on bail.
The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the names of the applicants did not appear in the first information report which was filed after a delay of four years and no specific part or overt act had been assigned to them. It was further contended that four of the accused persons in the same case have already been released on bail by this Court while two others were granted bail by the Sessions Court.
The learned counsel for the State filed copies of the statements of eight prosecution witnesses which were recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. Besides, he also produced copy of interim charge sheet dated 11-10-1977 and copies from monthly tour diaries of applicant Imdadullah Unar, the then Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, and Mohammad Bachal G. Memon, Assistant Commissioner, Sanghar, for the month of October, 1973.
2. Mr. Ahmed Hasnain, learned counsel for the State, contended that the names of the applicants were mentioned by the complainant Meer Khan in Constitutional Petition No. 1054 of 1973, which he had filed in this Court on 12-7-1973. It was contended that the petitioner Meer Khan had expressed certain apprehensions about his brother Fakir Mohammad Amin and in October, 1973, when the said petition was still pending, Fakir Mohammad Amin was done to death on account of a criminal conspiracy to which the applicants lent their active support as mentioned in the interim charge- sheet. He further contended that the applicants accused had acted at the instance of absconding accused Jam Sadik Ali, and Fakir Mohammad Amin could not have taken out of Central Jail, Sukkur and brought to Sanghar through A. S. I. Malook Hussain, with the intention of murdering him without official assistance of the applicants. He lastly contended that interim challan had already been submitted and further investigation was still in progress and if the applicants are released, who are influential persons, they would interfere with investigation by using their position. He referred to the statements of eight persons recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. In support of the allegation of conspiracy and involvement of the applicants. He further stated that these very two applicants were also involved in the murder of six Hurs at Sanghar and an order dated 30-10-1977 was passed rejecting their bail application in that case. He further contended that they took part in an overall conspiracy which was hatched by the then Minister Jam Sadik Ali for the extermination of certain followers of Peer Sahib Pagara and the applicants were willing participants in the conspiracy.
3. I have gone through the orders passed on the bail applications of Fakir Mohammad Rahim, Shahnawaz, Raja Malook Hussain and Ali Khan in this very case. In the case of Ali Khan confirmation of bail was not opposed and, therefore, order, was not passed on merits. In the cases .Of Fakir Mohammad Rahim and Raja Malook Hussain it was noticed that the names of the said accused did not find mention in the F. I. R. And the Civil Petition No. 1054 of 1973, while in the case of Shahnawaz the admitted position was that serious errors of fact had crept into the order of the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Advocate-General was not able to distinguish his case from the other accused. In the case of the applicants, complainant Meer Khan had named them in Civil Petition No. 1054 of 1973 which was filed in July, 1973, prior to the alleged incident of murder of Fakir Mohammad Amin. Besides, it cannot be said that no evidence whatsoever has been collected by the prosecution against them. In the circumstances, this is not the stage for scrutiny of evidence and merits of the case cannot be gone into. I, therefore, do not find any justification for disagreeing with the learned Sessions Judge and grant bail to the applicants, more particularly at this stage when interim charge-sheet has already been submitted in the Sessions Court, and according to the learned counsel for the State, a final charge-sheet is on the way.
In view of the above, the bail application is rejected.