AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Applicant Abdul Razak Mughal seeks post arrest bail in crime No,15/2017, under sections 302, 506/2, 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Airport Jacobabad.
2. Precisely facts of the prosecution case according to FIR lodged by complainant Mohammad Idrees are that on 18.3.2017 are that, his daughter Mst. Sehar was married with Ali Raza and on the eventful night i.e. 17.3.2017 the daughter of the complainant complained that her husband did not maintain her properly and she called the complainant as such the complainant along with his brother Babar Ali and son in law Muhammad Shareef went to the house of accused persons, where they met with the accused persons, namely Ali Raza, Abdul Sattar and Abdul Razak and Mst. Seher informed that she has given birth to a son, but her in-laws were not taking care of her and she wanted to go with complainant therefore, complainant wanted to take her with them and Mst.
Seher was ready to go with them. They were available in room when accused persons went outside the room for consultation, meantime accused persons Ali Raza and Abdul Sattar having daggers and Abdul Razak having TT pistol entered in the room and said that they did not allow Mst. Seher to go with the complainant and by saying so, accused person Ali Raza caused dagger blow to Mst.
Seher at her loin region and abdomen and her intestine oozed out and she raised cries and fallen down, to which complainant party cried but accused Abdul Razak threatened the complainant party by saying, if they raised cries they would be done to death. Thereafter all the accused persons escaped away by issuing threats of dire consequences to the complainant party.
Consequently, the complainant lodged FIR against the accused party.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the complainant party only to put undue pressure on the family of the accused as the accused Ali Raza is his nephew and an old matrimonial dispute is going on between the parties; that mere presence with TT pistol is shown in the FIR however no role of firing is ascribed to the present applicant; all the injuries on the person of Mst. Seher are caused by, means of Sharp cutting weapons, which are not alleged against the present applicant; that only allegation of criminal intimidation i.e. issuing murderous threats to complainant on the pointation of pistol is attributed to the applicant; that no crime weapon or any incriminating article has been received from the possession of present applicant to connect him with the commission of alleged offence; that co-accused Ali Raza voluntarily recorded his judicial confession /statement stating therein that he has committed the alleged murder alone and the present applicant/accused has nothing to do with the said murder: that all the PWs are close relatives i.e. son and son in law of complainant therefore, case of applicant is doubtful and it requires further inquiry. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case reported as 1994 SCM R 2161, 1998 SCM R 454, 1999 SCM R 1320, 2004 SCM R 864 and 2014 SCM R 1347.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that applicant is named in the FIR with specific role of carrying pistol and facilitated the principal accused; that PWs and medical report have supported the version of complainant; that applicant is equal guilty of the offence and that applicant was arrested from the place of incident and that the offence with which the applicant is charged carries capital punishment therefore, he opposed the grant of bail.
4(sic). Learned Addl.P.G, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant did not raise objection to the grant of bail in view of judicial confession of accused Ali Raza.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
6. Admittedly the allegation of carrying pistol at the place of incident and Lalkara is leveled against the present accused; but no overt act particularly qua the deceased is leveled. Moreover, judicial confession of accused Ali Raza is available on the record which creates doubt in the case of prosecution. Hence, his case is amply covered within the mischief of subsection (2) of the section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. It is judiciously recognized that unfortunately there is a tendency to involve the innocents with a guilty. Once an innocent is put under arrest, then he has to remain in jail for considerable time. Normally it takes years to conclude the trial in a murder case. Ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by the mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him but damage to an innocent person caused by arresting him, though ultimately acquitted, would be always beyond repair. So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/ probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail then in the jail, during the trial. Freedom of an individual is a precious right. It may be mentioned here that the case of an accused, when may become fit for bail on the ground of further inquiry, he then is entitled to such relief as of right and in such a situation he cannot be detained unnecessarily for a moment even.
7. For what it has been discussed above and in view of no objection extended by the learned Additional Prosecutor General this bail plea is accepted. Applicant Abdul Razak Mughal shall be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,300,000/- (Three Lac) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.