1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---Through this application, applicants Moohan Lal, Amar Lal and Dileep Kumar have applied for bail in Crime No.63 of 2004 of Police Station, Dokri District Larkana registered for an offence under sections 302, 147, 148, P.P.C. Bail plea of the applicants was declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24-1-2005.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the present bail application as per F.I.R. Are that on 18-12-2004 at 1530 hours, complainant approached Police Station, Dokti along with an application duly forwarded by D.P.O., Larkana for incorporating it in 154, Cr.P.C. Book and further seeking complete investigation, it is a case of complainant in the F.I.R. That in January, 2002, marriage of his daughter Mst. Kantabai was held with, accused Moohan Lal. From the first day of her marriage, his daughter was complaining that her in-laws are putting her under severe oppressions and injustices and also danger to her life. Two months back, Kantabai came to complainant in a highly disturbed condition. It is further stated by complainant that, we have given to our daughter almost 20 lacs dower articles from marriage uptil now. On 10-12-2004 accused Moohan Lal came to get back his wife; on his assurance she was permitted to go with him. Three days back i.e. 14-12-2004 at 4-00 p.m. Complainant received a telephone call that his daughter had expired. Complainant party reached there and at about 7-00 p.m. But found that there was mourning or grief in the house; Dr. Kalyan Das, uncle of accused Moohan Lal was busy in routine work at his clinic where accused Moohan Lal was having tea along with his two brothers. Apparently from the mouth of Kantabai, a foam was coming and on the following morning, very thick spots appeared on the body of deceased Kantabai. For confirmation, board of 5 doctors namely Dr. Ikram Ahmed Tunio, Dr. Noor Ahmed Shaikh, Dr. Manohar Lal, Dr. Kanwal Kumar and Dr. Ramesh Lal was constituted who too gave a definite finding that Kantabai had been administered the poison. Till that time, 22 hours had elapsed her death. Therefore, on the advise of Nekmards, dead body was disposed of through Agni Sanscar (by putting the dead body on fire). Complainant also alleged that accused party in collusion with each other, headed by Mst. Indran wife of Chella Ram, in order to grab the total dower articles, has poisoned his daughter thereby causing her cold-blooded murder.
3. ' After registration of F.I.R. The investigation followed and in due course the applicants/accused were arrested and sent up to stand trial.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material brought on record. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that there is inordinate delay of 4 days in lodging F.I.R. It is further disclosed that there is no medical evidence showing that Kantabai was administered with poison. It has also been contended that there is no eye-witness account of the incident. It has further been contended that no post mortem of dead body was carried. It has further been averred that co-accused Mst. Indran has been granted bail by the trial Court and the case of present applicants is identical. He further submits that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of present applicants. It has lastly been contended that the accused Dr. Kalyan Dass was released by Police under section 497, Cr.P.C. And the case of present applicants is identical which has adversely reflected on the version of prosecution story as a whole.
5. ' On all these scores, learned counsel for the applicants has sought bail on behalf of the applicants.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has sought relief upon a case of Muhammad Bux v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1831.
7. ' Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto, learned Advocate for the complainant contended that on 10-12-2004 deceased Kantabai was brought from her parents by accused Moohan Lal with assurance to keep her in peaceful conditions but just after 4 days she was murdered by accused party, killing brutally, in her young age which is apparent from her three photographs produced before this Court; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has plausibly been explained; that the motive for causing murder of deceased Kantabia is given in F.I.R. That accused party wanted to grab her whole dower articles worth Rs.20 lacs which was given her from marriage till she breathed her last; that five doctors had examined the dead-body of deceased and opined that she was poisoned; that the affidavits of five doctors to that effect, filed before trial Court, are also produced before this Court. He also urged that non-examination of post-mortem is not fatal to the prosecution as the deceased was Hindu and complainant on advice of Nekmards had performed Agni Sanscar leaving behind ash for disbursement. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon case-law reported as Abdul Malik v. The State PLD 1996 SC 1; Qazi Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others v. The State 2005 SLJ 96 and 1992 N Cr.C.
8. 10.
9. ' Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman Shaikh, learned Assistant A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail while adopting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant.
10. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and properly assessed the material brought before me. It appears that F.I.R was lodged with the delay of 4 days; there is no medical evidence to show that the deceased Kantabai was administered poison and even no post-mortem was conducted. It also appears that this is blind murder. Co-accused Dr. Kalyan Dass was released by the police under section 497, Cr.P.0 which has adversely reflected on the version of prosecution story as a whole. I have also noted that murder of deceased Kantabai was caused at the house of co-accused Mst Indran, mother-in-law of deceased girl. The motive behind the scene appears to be cash and dower articles worth Rs.20 lacs given to the deceased by her parents in her marriage till she breathed her last, which all along remained in possession of co-accused Indran. The Investigating Officer had also doubted some feelings among Nekmards who reported that murder has been caused in order to grab the dower articles. Complainant also claimed that Mst. Indran is a criminal type of woman who did not, even keep deceased Kantabia in peaceful condition. Kantabai had also complained regarding atrocities at her hands. It seems that dower articles remained in custody of Mst. Indran being head of the family and beneficiary of those dower articles. In these circumstances, it can safely be inferred that co-accused Mst. Indran appears to have nexus in respect of above murder. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was wrong in granting bail to co-accused Mst. Indran in an undue haste, which is recalled and she may be taken into custody in order to face the trial.
11. ' I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. By my short order dated 16-6-2005, I had granted bail to all the three applicants namely Moohan Lal. Amar Lal and Dileep Kumar and above are the reasons for the same.