SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.---Through instant bail application, applicants seek post arrest bail in Crime No,112/2016 registered at Police Station A-Section Latifabad, Hyderabad, under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR lodged by complainant Muhammad Idrees, are that his two daughters Reema was married with Khalid while Aneela with Waqas, brother of Khalid; that since marriage, the relations between the parties never remained good and in-laws of her daughters used to misbehave with her daughters, about 01 year back Aneela had given birth to a child, therefore, complainant along with his wife and two sons had come to meet with his daughter but due to misbehavour of his sons-in-law they returned back. On 14.05.2016, one Rafique made him phone that Aneela is admitted in Civil Hospital at Hyderabad in serious condition, during that he also told that she has been expired on which the complainant along with his brother-in-law Muhammad Saleem, sons Muhammad Farooq, Ali Hassan and his wife Mst. Nasreen came at Hyderabad Civil Hospital, where police of A-Section was also available and he went in the mortuary room, where he saw dead body of his daughter having throttling signs and also marks of violence on other parts of her body. Tayab Ali his sons Waqas, Khalid and wife namely Sarwari were available there, who did not talk a single word with the complainant, however after postmortem he brought dead body at Latifabad No,12 in the house of his brother Muhammad Naeem where Tayab, Khalid, Waqas and Jawaid came who hurled abuses to the complainant.
However, some persons of brother intervened and thereafter funeral formalities of deceased Aneela were completed, thereafter complainant appeared at the police station and lodged report with the allegation that in-laws of Aneela used to maltreat and torture her and on 14.05.2016 all these persons with their common intention have committed murder of deceased Aneela by throttling.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this is an unseen incident, no recovery whatsoever have been effected from the applicants; according to postmortem report the reason of death of deceased is strangulation and no torture marks were seen by the doctor while examining the dead body, that the postmortem report as well as Lash Chakas Form and Danistnama have belied the allegations of torture marks on the body and hands of the deceased as narrated by the complainant which is sufficient to prove that the story narrated in the FIR is totally false, fabricated and concocted one and the case requires further inquiry; that the medical evidence is contradictory to the story narrated in the FIR; that the complainant has admitted dispute between the parties; that there is sufficient material available on record to prove that the deceased has committed suicide; that the applicants shifted the deceased to the hospital to save his life; that no specific allegation has been assigned to any of the applicants hence the case requires further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. extended no objection on the ground that this is an unseen incident and no material evidence is gathered during the investigation to connect the applicants in the commission of offence.
5. Admittedly, as per FIR relations between the parties were strained and incident is also unseen one; allegation of murder prima facie appears to have been based on suspicion or earlier attitude of the applicants/accused which both may be circumstance but alone are not sufficient to qualify the requirement to deny one discretion of bail i,e, 'existence of reasonable grounds to be believed that accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged' . The tentative assessment of available material prima facie shows that the entire case depends upon hearsay, evidence or, at the most, circumstantial evidences but no iota of evidence is gathered by the prosecution to connect the applicants with alleged heinous offence; main allegation is against the co-accused husband of deceased who is in jail; medical evidence also does not support the version of the complainant; no marks of violence have been found on the person of the dead body except ligature marks during the medical examination and such fact has also been admitted by the medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. The complainant has admitted annoyance/enmity against the applicants/ accused hence the plea of false implication, as raised, cannot be ruled out even at this stage because legally benefit of doubt even at bail stage has to be given to accused. Reference in this regard can well be made to the case of Zaigham Ashraf v. State 2016 SCM R 18 wherein it is held that:- "In the case of Amir v. The State. (PLD 1972 SC 277), it was held that, "for purposes of bail, law not to be stretched in favour of prosecution---Benefit of doubt, if any arising, must go to accused even on bail stage". Similar view was taken in the case of Manzoor v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81). These principles so laid down, are based on enunciation of law in interpreting the provision of section 497, Cr.P.C., and broader principle of justice. Till date, no departure or deviation has been made therefrom by this Court then, these are the principles of law and have binding effect and shall be construed as guiding principles by all the Courts in the matter of grant or refusal of bail.' Moreover, there are general allegations against the present applicants and no specific role has been assigned to any of the applicant; there is delay in lodging of the FIR for which no any plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainants. No sufficient evidence has been brought to show that the present applicants have committed the murder of deceased and only on hearsay evidence the applicants cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period even on a charge of murder particularly when the accused have succeeded in showing a doubt. Reliance is placed on case of Zaigham Ashraf (supra) wherein it is also held as:-- 'To the contrary, the accused's burden is not that much heavier like the Prosecution. He has only to show that the evidence / materials, collected by the prosecution or/and the defence plea taken by him create reasonable doubts/suspicion in the Prosecution case and he in entitled to avail the benefit of it.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the present applicants have succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, they are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000/- (One lace each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.