ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.---Applicant namely Israr Ahmed, son of Iqbal Ahmed is seeking post arrest bail in FIR No.465/2015 registered at Police Station Docks, Karachi for offences punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.10.2015 at about 1800 hours Complainant namely Mst. Razia, wife of Aslam lodged FIR No.465/2015 at Police station Docks, Karachi that her daughter Mst. Seema was married to Applicant about 1 and a half year ago and out of the said wedlock one baby boy was born who is 3 to 4 months old. It is alleged by the Complainant that Applicant used to treat her daughter very badly with further assertion that rickshaw driver namely Abdul Salam once disclosed to her that Applicant had beaten her daughter (Mst. Seema) in his rickshaw. It is further alleged that Applicant used to say to the Complainant that one day she will see the dead body of her daughter. It is further disclosed that Mr. Rabi, son of landlord of Applicant went to the house of Complainant in the morning and told her that dead body of her daughter (Mst. Seema) is lying in the room of Applicant. On such information Complainant rushed to said house, found Applicant and other family members there and saw the dead body of her daughter (Mst. Seema) with blue color marks around her neck. Complainant alleged that Applicant has murdered her daughter (Mst. Seema) through strangulation. Thereafter, police lodged FIR under section 302/34, P.P.C. against Applicant.
3. Investigating Officer recorded statements of prosecution witnesses, arrested and interrogated Applicant, got conducted postmortem of dead body of Mst. Seema and obtained its report. From the place of incident investigating Officer recovered one rope, azarband, hook, one piece of cloth and sealed them at the spot under Mashirnama. Finally, Investigating Officer submitted Charge Sheet on 12.11.2015 before learned VII-Judicial Magistrate, Karachi, West which was forwarded to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi, West. Thereafter, matter was transferred to the Court of learned VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, West for trial. Applicant moved bail application which was dismissed by learned VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, West vide Order dated 19.04.2017. Thereafter, on 27.05.2017 Applicant approached this Court.
4. Mr. Shah Imroz Khan, learned counsel for the Applicant has contended that Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Per learned counsel learned Trial Court failed to consider that two prosecution witnesses were examined but none of them identified the present Applicant hence, there is no eye witness to the alleged incident; that Applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he is being dragged by the mother of deceased with ulterior motives; that learned Trial Court failed to consider major contradictions in the statement of the Complainant and P.Ws as well as variations in FIR, challan and statements; therefore, entire case of prosecution becomes doubtful and requires further inquiry; that Complainant has managed the entire story which is based on hearsay evidence; that someone informed the Complainant that her daughter is killed but, neither Complainant had seen the occurrence nor the person who reported the said incident to the Complainant, therefore it is un-seen occurrence; that Applicant who is husband of deceased Mst. Seema and has one minor baby boy cannot think to commit her murder therefore, Applicant cannot be saddled with the offence of murder of his wife; that there is delay of 10 hours in lodging of FIR and no explanation has been given; that one of the witnesses namely Mst. Sanora Begum, the landlady of the house in which Applicant and deceased Mst.
Seema resided deposed that on the day of incident she did not hear/listen any sound of crying, killing etc., although room of Applicant is attached with the room of landlady; Besides, landlady did not 'identify the present Applicant during evidence; that prosecution has failed to associate the star witnesses of the case namely Rabi Alam, son of Mst. Sanora Begum/land lady and Abdul Salam (rickshaw driver) which creates serious doubt in the prosecution story; that prosecution has failed to take fingerprints from the Applicant to prove the murder charge of deceased Mst. Seema; that Applicant was working as fisherman and he used to come home very late in the night; that on the night of incident Applicant slept in his room and woke up early in the morning and saw his wife Mst. Seema lying unconscious; that Applicant took Mst. Seema in rickshaw to hospital for emergency treatment where doctors informed him that Mst. Seema is already dead; therefore, the question of murder of Mst. Seema by Applicant does not arise; that there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. in alleged recovery; that there is allegation in the FIR regarding maltreatment of deceased Mst. Seema but there is no injury mark on the her dead body; that neither Complainant nor Mst.
Seema in her life time lodged any complaint against the Applicant for alleged maltreatment; that Complainant. failed to disclose her identity by producing identity card during cross-examination and name of her husband as well as residential address are also not mentioned. Per learned counsel this is a blind murder case as nobody has seen the incident; that there is no motive on the part of Applicant to commit murder of his wife. He lastly prayed for grant of bail to the Applicant. In support of his contention the reliance is placed upon the case of Nawab-ud-Din alias Nawab Tun v.
The State (1999 PCr.LJ 379), Dr. Sarwar H.Rehman v. The State (1971 PCr.LJ 872), Hyder Jamal and others v. The State (1999 M LD 979), Shoukat v. The State (1982 PCr.LJ 696), Abdullah alias Mali v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 768), Allah Ditta v. The State (2012 SCM R 184), Kahlid Maqsood v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1028), Rano and others v. The State (2003 M LD 1610), Haroon Shah and others v. The State and others (2011 PCr.LJ 210), Manzoor Hussain v. The State (2011 SCM R 902), Naveed Akhter alias Chanda v. The State (2003 YLR 2536), Syed Shabhat Raza Zaidi v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 910), Muhammad Akram alias Dr. gram and others v. The State (1982 PCr.LJ 592) and Wassayo and 3 others v. The State (1982 PCr.LJ 97).
5. Ms. Seema Zaidi, learned D.P.G. has opposed grant of bail to the Applicant and argued that Applicant is specifically nominated in the FIR; that Complainant and P.Ws have clearly implicated the Applicant/ Accused in their depositions recorded by learned Trial Court; that offence committed by the Applicant is brutal in nature therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail; that Complainant is mother in law of Applicant who has no discernible reason to falsely implicate Applicant in the murder of her daughter; that Prosecutor Witnesses also have no reason to implicate Applicant falsely in the present crime; that based on the Post-Mortem Report it is a clear case of murder at the hands of Applicant and not suicide as depicted by the Applicant; that prosecution has examined three witnesses and direction may be issued to the learned Trial Court to conclude trial within a period of three months. She lastly prays for dismissal of the bail application.
6. Complainant/Mst. Razia is present in person and has adopted the arguments of learned D.P.G.
She narrated entire story of murder of her deceased daughter at the hands of Applicant.
Investigating Officer also stated the facts of alleged incident which resulted in the murder of deceased Mst. Seema.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned DPG as well as complainant in person, and perused the material available on record so also case law cited at the Bar.
8. I am conscious of the fact that while deciding a bail application, this court has to consider the allegations made in the FIR, statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., nature and gravity of charge, other incriminating material against the accused, legal pleas raised by the accused and relevant laws. In this regard, I am fortified by the decision of Honorable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shahzad Ahmed v. The State (201SCMR 1221).
9. Record reflects that Applicant is arrested on 20.10.2015 soon B after the alleged incident.
Investigating officer recovered one rope, one string, one hook of iron hanger and piece of cloth with which mouth of ,deceased was muzzled from the place of occurrence. The recovery was duly witnessed by the private witnesses who had no ostensible reason to falsely implicate the Applicant in a case of present nature. Case of the Applicant is hit by prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. medical/postmortem report supports the prosecution case that death of deceased occurred due to cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia caused by constriction of neck by ligature as in strangulation. Prima-facie the prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating material, in the shape of direct, medical and circumstantial evidence to connect the applicant in the alleged crime; therefore no case of further enquiry is made out at this stage. Record further reflects that trial is in progress and prosecution has examined complainant/Mst. Razia mother of deceased, neighbored/ Muhammad Ali, and landlady/Mst. Sanora Begum. Per prosecution trial is at the verge of conclusion and can be concluded within a period of two or three months. The above proposition of law has been set at naught by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Rehmatullah v. The State and others (2011 SCM R 1332),
10. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the Applicant is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances the Applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail, at this stage therefore, the instant bail application is dismissed.
12. The findings mentioned above are tentative in nature which shall not prejudice the case of either party at the trial stage. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months where after the Applicant will be at liberty to move a fresh bail application before the learned Trial Court on fresh ground, if any.
13. That above are the reasons of short order dated 27.7.2017.