' ABDUL RASOOL, MEMON, J.---Applicants Qurban Ali and Hout Muhammad, both by caste. Khoso, who are booked in Crime No.45 of 2012, under Sections 302, 147, 148, P.P.C. Of Police Station Qubo Saeed Khan, District Kamber-Shandadkot, twice being unsuccessful before the trial Court in getting post arrest bail, have approached this Court with same request.
2. The allegation against the applicants are that on 14-8-2012, at 12-00 noon, they committed qatl- i-amd of Mst. Wazeeran, sister of complainant Ghulam Fareed Khoso, by means of strangulation with rope, while co-accused, namely, Nazeer and Abid, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted lathi blows to her. Such F.I.R. Was lodged.
3.. The trial Court granted bail to co-accused Abid and Nazeer, on the ground that no mark of violence was found on the body of the deceased except ligature marks measuring 25 x 15 c.Ms. On the neck of deceased Mst. Wazeeran, which is attributed to the present applicants.
4. Mr. Shoukat Ali Phul, learned Counsel for the applicants, has contended that there is delay in lodging F.I.R. For about 16 hours, which has not been plausibly explained and it gives presumption to the meditation, consultation and false implication of the innocent persons; that in fact the deceased had committed suicide and the brothers of the deceased have roped the whole family of the present applicants malafidely; that such news item was published in daily "Koshish" on 15th August, 2012, a day after the incident, wherein it is mentioned that deceased Wazeeran has committed suicide, therefore, in view of the said newspaper cutting the case of the present applicants becomes of further enquiry; that co-accused Abid and Nazeer have been admitted to bail by the trial Court and the case of present applicants is at par to that of co-accused Abid and Nazeer, therefore, they are also entitled to bail on the ground of consistency. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the cases reported as (sic)
5. Mr. Riaz Hussain Khoso, learned State Counsel, has contended that the names of present applicants appear in F.I.R; that they have been specifically alleged for strangulating to the deceased Mst. Wazeeran with a rope in a broad daylight in their house and did not report the alleged matter of suicide anywhere; that medical evidence in conformity with the allegations made in the F.I.R; that case of co-accused Abid and Nazeer is not at par because the allegation against them was not in conformity with medical evidence, so they were granted bail, while the allegations against the present applicants are in conformity with the medical evidence;: that the offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the accused have not completed the period of statutory delay by remaining in jail and on merits they have got no case for grant of bail and the learned trial Court has rightly rejected their bail plea.
6. I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and with the assistance of learned State Counsel gone through the papers on record.
7. Admittedly, the names of present applicants appear in the F.I.R. With specific role that they both strangulated deceased Wazeeran with a rope. The prosecution witnesses have supported the version of complainant, namely, Ghulam Fareed Khoso in F.I.R. The medical evidence, on the very face of it, shows that ligature marks measuring 25 x 15 c.Ms. On the neck of deceased were available, which fact is in conformity with the allegation made in the F.I.R. The delay ipso facto is no ground for grant of bail while comment on its explanation will amount to deeper appreciation. The counsel for the applicants, wanted this Court to consider the newspaper cutting for bringing his case within the meaning of further enquiry. The newspaper cuttings could not be considered at this stage and could only be proved in a way required by the Law of Evidence/Qanun-e-Shahadat.
Particularly, in a criminal case such cutting cannot be used either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defence unless author, of the same is examined in Court as a witness. The reliance is placed in this respect on a case reported as Muhammad Ashraf Khan v. The State and another 1996 SCM R 1747.So far as rule of consistency is concerned, co-accused Abid and Nazeer. Were attributed lathi blows on the body of the deceased, while the medical evidence was in negative in respect of lathi blows on the body of the deceased, therefore, considering the said medical and ocular account the trial Court has granted bail to co-accused and the case of present applicants cannot be said to be at par with that of co-accused Abid and Nazeer.
8. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the present applicants have committed the alleged offence thus the order of the trial Court refusing bail to the present applicants dated 29-6-2013 is in accordance with law and does not require any interference of this Court and is maintained. Consequently, the application in hand stands dismissed. However, looking to the age of the case, the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and decide the same on priority within the parameters and timeframe given by the National Judicial Policy.