ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---- Through this order I intend to dispose of above titled application filed by the applicant for his release on bail in case FIR No. 45 of 2020 Police Station Cantt: Quetta registered on 25th July, 2020.
2. The concise facts of the case are that on 25th July, 2020 case FIR No. 45 of 2020, under Sections 302, 147, 149 Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) was registered on the report of Sher Ali with Police Station of Cantt: Quetta against the applicant/accused and co-accused in respect of murder of Muhammad Hadi.
3. After registration of FIR the accused/applicant was arrested and subjected to investigation. Whereafter , he moved an application for grant of bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-V , Quetta vide order dated 21st August, 2020 dismissed the bail application; hence the applicant is before this court for the same relief.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the co-accused has already been granted bail by the trial court. The place of occurrence is thickly populated area, but no statement of nearby shopkeepers was recorded.
The Investigating Officer has taken into custody USB which negates the version of the complainant. The medical evidence is in conflict with the statement of the complainant, The learned counsel placed reliance on Kamal v. The State 2003 YLR 2451 , Ghulam Asghar v. The State 1985 SCMR 1946 , Ziaullah v. The State 2012 MLD 319, Shahid v. The State 1994 SCMR 393, Perwaiz v. The State 1995 PCr. CJ 544 and Khalida Begum v.
Muhammad Rashid Khan PLD 1995 SC 34 .
5. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and stated that the applicant/ accused is nominated in the promptly lodged FIR. There exists enmity between the parties and in this regard civil case is also pending before the court of law. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory yet to be awaited. The complainant has attributed specific role to the applicant/accused. The nature of crime is heinous. He placed reliance on Kaleemullah v. The State 2013 YLR 1837 and Fida Hussain v.
The State 2012 YLR 1884 .
6. The learned State Counsel stated that the trial court has rightly rejected the bail application. The order of the trial court is reasonable and accordingly to the law .
7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/ accused, complainant and learned State Counsel at length as well as perused the record with their assistance. Although the accused/applicant is nominated in the FIR with the role of strangulation of deceased. The post mortem report shows that there were bruises on nose, right cheek, small scratches on cheek, bruises on face, no injury on skull and body . The deceased was cardiac patient. The cause of death is to be determined after receiving report of Chemical Analysis, meaning thereby that the medical report is not in line with the version given in the FIR. The cause of death is yet to be ascertained. Reliance is placed on the case of Allah Ditto v . The State 201 1 PCr .LJ 485, Saqib Abbas v . The State 2009 YLR 1081 .
8. Admittedly there exists dispute between the parties. The deceased filed suit against the accused for illegal construction and violation of building code as well as encroaching upon public road/ street which is pending before civil court. Where enmity exists false implication cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed on the case of Subeh Sadiq alias Saabo alias Kalu v . State, 2011 SCMR 1543 .
9. Admittedly the applicant/accused was present empty handed. The nomination in the FIR is no ground for refusal of bail. There is no legal compulsion to keep an accused in jail merely on the allegation that he had been nominated in the FIR and had committed murder unless reasonable ground appear to exist. There is no concept of punishment before the judgment in the criminal law of the land. Reliance is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir v.
The State PLD 1995 SC 34 . It was under: ----. It is by now judiciously recognized that there is a tendency in our country to involve innocent persons with the guilty . Once an innocent person is falsely involved in a serious case then he has to remain in jail for considerable time. Normally it takes two years to conclu de the trial. When a person is detained in the jail, all his dependents also suffer hardships. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim: bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run. So, whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime, he should not be deprived of the benefit of bail.
10. The investigation of the case has been completed and the applicant/accused has been remanded to judicial custody . The guilt or innocence of the applicant/accused is yet to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of Haday Khan v . The State 2019 YLR N-96 .
11. The cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances of the case create doubt. It is settled principle of law that benefit of slightest doubt E goes to the accused even at bail stage. Reliance is placed on the case of F Muhammad Faisal v . The State 2020 SCMR 971 .
In view of the bail the bail application is allowed. The applicant Mohsin Raza son of Raza Ali is released on bail in case FIR No. 45 of 2020, registered under Sections 302, 147, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Cantt: Quetta subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand) and PR of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court or trial court.
The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the complainant are distinguished.
The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and same shall not influence merits of the case at the trial.