IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---By this bail application, the applicant has sought post arrest bail in Crime No. 35 of 2009 of Police Station Naperkot for an offence under sections 302, 201, 34, 342, P.P.C., after his bail plea was declined by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 17-7-2010.
In precise the case of the prosecution is that on 20-5-2009 at noon time the complainant along with his nephew Mureed son of Khamiso aged about 25/26 years and relatives Gul Muhammad son of Chakar Muhammad Ramzan son of Mako, by caste Jhangwani went together to Shikarpur for purchasing some household articles. After purchasing household articles they boarded in a wagon and alighted from the same on the link road and were going towards their village. At about 9-30 p.m., on the light of torch they saw and identified accused Muhammad Ali son of Ismail having rope in his hand. Saadat Ali son of Ismail.
3. Mehrab son of Eidan both were armed with K.Ks.
4. Rehmatullah son of Nabi Bux,
5. Gajan son of Gul Khan,
6. Baboo son of Mehrab both were armed with lathies, by caste Jhangwani resident of village Gul Khan Jhangwani, Taluka Khanpur came there and aimed the weapons upon the complainant party and directed them to be kept silent.
They further stated that they have committed so many prejudices against them prior saying so they pointed their weapons straight. Due to fear they kept silent. Accused Saeed Ali and Muhammad Ali grappled with his nephew Mureed and fallen down him on the ground and putting their knees on his chest, they kept sitting on him. Muhammad Ali put the rope on the neck of Mureed and asked accused Rehmatullah to pull the rope and strangulated him and after strangulation Mureed died at the spot. In order to conceal the dead body of Mureed they took the same and went to unknown place. Other co-accused tied them by arms and eyes and took them unknown place, where at morning they opened their hands and eyes and found themselves in a jungle where no person was available. Consequently they searched for the dead-body of Mureed where they found the dead body of Mureed .In the same jungle. It is further case of the prosecution that the complainant arranged a wagon and took the dead body of his nephew and brought at Police Station where police referred the dead body to Khanpur Taluka Hospital for postmortem.
After completing the funeral ceremony, the complainant lodged F.I.R. As stated above.
The police conducted investigation and arrested the applicants/accused and submitted challan.
The case is pending in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur for the adjudication.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the incident is unwitnessed one, though it is mentioned in the F.I.R. That the accused were armed with deadly weapons such as K.Ks. And guns but instead of using the same they have chosen to strangulate the deceased with the rope which is unbelievable and against the human conduct. He further argued that identification in the light of torch light is a weak type of evidence. He further contended that further statement of the complainant was recorded on second day of the F.I.R. i.e., 22-5-2009 whereupon the complainant has let off accused Mehrab and Babu and implicated other two accused in the case. All these circumstances make the case of applicant one of further inquiry. Hence he argued that the applicants are entitled for concession of bail at this stage.
On the other hand, Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned counsel for the State argued that this is a brutal murder. He pointed out that mashirnama of wardaht where the incident has taken place foot marks of the persons are available and blood is also taken from the first place of wardhat. He further pointed out that at the place where the dead body was lying, police also secured bloodstained earth. He further contended that this is a brutal murder the names of the applicants do appear in the F.I.R. With specific role. The eye-witnesses who were available at the place of wardhat and accompanied with the deceased and complainant, in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements have fully supported the version of the complainant. In these circumstances, learned State counsel vehemently opposed for grant of bail.
I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and perused the relevant record. The present applicants have been named in the F.I.R. With specific role of strangulation and committing murder of the deceased Mureed. The medical evidence is supporting the version of the complainant as postmortem report reveals that marks of strangulation are available on the neck of the deceased Mureed. The witnesses in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements have supported the version of the complainant which were recorded on second day of the registration of the F.I.R. All these facts and circumstances clearly supports the version of the complainant.
In the above circumstances, I see no merits in the instant bail application which is dismissed.