' FAISAL ARAB, J.--- The applicant Baliauddin Baber, an Inspector of police posted at Police Station Kalari, Karachi at the relevant time, is implicated in F.I.R. No,101 of 2006, registered on 21-7-2006 at Police Station Sakrand Nawabshah under sections 302, 364, 343, 201, 202 and 34, P.P.C.
2. The allegations made in the said F.I.R. By one Mst. Lal Bibi are that on 13-7-2006 photograph of her husband Rasool Bux Brohi appeared in the newspapers which described him as dacoit Mashook Brohi and was reported to have been killed in "police encounter". Upon seeing the photograph, she rushed to Karachi where at the Edhi Centre's Cold Storage she identified her husband Rasool Bux's body which was kept under the name of Mashook Brohi. She sought letter from the police so that she could take delivery of her husband's body but was told that this would be done only if she accepts the dead body to be of Mashook Brohi. She refused to take delivery of her husband's body under a false name. Ultimately, it took her five more days to take delivery of her husband Rasool Bux Brohi's dead body which was finally given to her on 18-7-2006. She then took the body for burial to her native place.
3. In the F.I.R. She implicated S.P. Chaudhry Aslam and his team in the murder of her husband as they had claimed to have killed dacoit Mashook Brohi in the "police encounter". In her F.I.R. She has also alleged that her deceased husband Rasool Bux Brohi was kept in unlawful confinement for 2-3 days where he was tortured to death and then his identity was changed to that of dacoit Mashook Brohi said to be killed in and police encounter.
4. Pursuant to such F.I.R. An Inquiry Committee was set up comprising of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and Taluka Police Officer which in its report gave its finding that Rasool Bux Brohi was first taken into illegal custody on 10-7-2006 tortured to death on 12-7-2006 and then falsely shown to be dacoit Mashook Brohi killed in fake police encounter.
5. With regard to the implication of the applicant in the crime three policemen in their respective statements have consistently stated that the applicant upon his return on 12-7-2006 has stated that he along with S.P. Chaudhry Aslam and other members of the Task Force have killed dacoit Mashook Brohi in police encounter upon whose head there was a price money of Rs,2,500,000 and that he would also get a share in the price and promotion as well.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is neither named 'in the F.I.R. Nor he was member of the Task Force, headed by S.P. Chaudhry Aslam as such he is entitled to the concession of bail. He further argued that station diary entries of departure and return of the applicant from his police station do not coincide with the departure and return entries of S.P.
Chaudhry Aslam and his Task Force and therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be part of team led by S.P. Chaudhry Aslam which is said have killed Rasool Bux Brohi in a fake police encounter.
7. The three policemen who have implicated the present applicant in their respective statements have clearly stated that the applicant left his police station in order to join S.P. Chaudhry Aslam and his Task Force and upon his return stated that he along with S.P. Chaudhry Aslam and his Task Force have killed dacoit Mashook Brohi.
8. Furthermore, upon examination of station diary entries it becomes clear that departure and return entries of the applicant to his police station coincide with the departure and return entries of S.P. Chaudhry Aslam and his Task Force.
9. In the present case heinous offence of torture and cold-blooded murder in unlawful custody has been committed by police functionaries and then such murder was falsely alleged to be of a dacoit Mashook Brohi in order to claim his head money. No lenient view could be taken against the applicant whom there is sufficient material to prima facie connect him with the alleged crime.
10. In the case of Imtiaz Ahmed v. The State reported in PLD 1997 SC 545 it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that even in cases where the alleged crime carries punishment of less than 10 -years, bail can still be refused if the accused is a public functionary and prima facie there is sufficient material to connect such functionary with the crime. In this background none of the case-law relied upon by the counsel for the applicant has any relevance.
11. In Criminal Bail Application No,113 of 2007 decided by me recently while sitting at Hyderabad Circuit Bench I refused concession of bail on the ground that there was sufficient material for connecting the accused persons with the crime. The present applicant being clearly implicated in the case and the fact that, co-accused persons' Bail Application No,841 of 2006 has also been rejected, there is no reason to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in Bail Application No,841 of 2006. For the foregoing reason, this bail application is dismissed.