1. SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.--- Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that one UTP Anees Ahmed Mallah was murdered in a jail apprising on 3-4-2009. On hearing this news at 8-00 p.m. on the same night complainant Mst. Noor Khatoon mother of the deceased started enquiring about the incident from the jail authorities and finally her relations were informed that they could receive the dead-body in Civil Hospital Sanghar which was accordingly done, when brother of-the complainant her other son and a relative went to receive the dead-body. They saw that his throat was completely cut injuries were on face and eyes, skull was ruined, legs and arms were broken and there were various injuries on the other parts of the dead body. On the same day she came to know that the Jail authorities had lodged another F.I.R. against unknown prisoners for the murder of the deceased. Thereafter, the complainant had moved this Court which appointed the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, for enquiring into the matter and upon such enquiry report it was found that the applicants. Sikandar Ali, Liaquat Ali, Waliullah Durrani, Gagafi Chandio and others, who were all Jail officials, were negligent in their duties.
2. Both the learned counsel for the applicants have very firmly argued that there is not an iota of evidence with the prosecution to connect the applicants with the crime in question, as admittedly it was an un-seen one. In the detailed enquiry carried out' by, the District and Sessions Judge Sanghar wherein a number of witnesses were examined, nothing can be revealed insofar as the circumstances in which the deceased was killed. However, the learned Enquiry Officer has opined that most probably the other inmates murdered the deceased for any reason for which the applicants have been held liable due to their negligence in performing their duties. Per learned counsel such conclusion is not based on any piece of evidence but the mere fact that a fire arm was also used in killing the deceased and his legs and arms had been broken with a hard and blunt object etc. Hence, the F.I.R. has been motivated through mala fides in order to get hold of any accused.
3. The learned A.P.-G. has opposed the confirmation of bail on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has concluded the involvement of the present applicants on the basis of negligence.
4. I have heard the learned A.P.-G. as well as both the learned counsel. In my opinion, the above crime is an un-witnessed one and the prosecution is not armed with any piece of evidence, which would prima facie connect the present applicants/accused with the crime in question. Apparently, upon reading the statements of some of the witnesses who are inmates of the prison recorded by the learned Enquiry Officer, it appears that perhaps some religious element is involved as one of the witnesses stated that he had heard cries of 'Gustakh-e-Rasool' raised by some of the inmates on the night of the incident. In these circumstances, I find that this is a fit case for confirmation of interim bail. Order accordingly. The interim bail is, accordingly, confirmed on the same terms and conditions for all the applicants as the interim bail.
5. Mr. Jamil Ahmed Mufti, learned counsel for the applicants, says that one of the applicants, namely, Sikandar Ali, has died, and in support he has filed a statement along with Death Certificate. He therefore, prays that bail application of Sikandar Ali be ordered to be dismissed and the surety be discharged and his document be directed to be returned to him. The learned A.P.-G. has no objection. Consequently, bail application of Sikandar Ali is dismissed as having become infructuous. The surety is discharged. His papers/other surety be returned to hint on proper identification and verification by the Nazir of this Court.
6. All the three Bail Applications stand disposed of.