AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---The applicants are presently confined in Central Jail, Karachi seek bail in Crime No.464/2019. under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Surjani Town, Karachi.
2. As per FIR the complainant, on receiving information that his sister Samreen had, died and her Beady body was lying at Imran Jee Hospital, he along with other relatives reached the hospital, where dead body of his sister was lying and present applicants were also present. He was informed by applicant Faizan that he found the her in dead condition. He found the marks of torcher on her neck and took the dead body of his sister to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital when both the applicants disappeared. After post mortem, her sister was buried when neither the applicants nor anyohe else from their side had appeared in the funeral which created serous doubt in his mind and being suspicious the instant FIR has been lodged.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He argued that FIR has been lodged with the delay of 24 hours without any plausible explanation. He further argued that though the names of applicants are mentioned in the FIR but no specific role has been assigned against them; there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident; there is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of applicant; there is nothing on record which connects the applicants with alleged incident. Lastly he contended that the facts and circumstances of the case made it a case of further inquiry. To support his contentions learned counsel- relied upon the cases of Saifullah v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1458), Ghulam Mujtaba Qadri v. The State and others (2012 SCMR 662) and the case of Gul Din v. The State and another (2011 SCMR 1997).
5. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh could not controvert the above submissions of learned counsel for the applicants but stated that since the applicants are involved in heinous crime of murder of a lady, hence he raised objection for grant of bail to the applicant.
6. It is an admitted fact that FIR has been lodged with the delay of 24 hours without explaining the delay; no iota of evidence is available against the applicants except their implication by the complainant; no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of applicants. The complainant present in court himself stated that the applicant Adnan was living in the same house where her sister was living while the applicant Junaid was living in a separate house. The presence of applicant Syed Junaid Ahmed is doubtful while the presence of applicant Adnan at the spot has to be proved with evidence.
7. At bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case are not permitted and only tentative assessment is to be made, however, where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. Wisdom is sought from the case titled Yar Muhammad v. The State and another reported in 2004 YLR 2230 and Saifullah v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1458).
8. It is settled law that in case of further inquiry, bail is to be granted as a matter of right and not by way of any concession or grace. Life and liberty of a citizen is very precious and guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. This issue has also been settled down by the Hon'ble. Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in (PLD 1989 SC 585). Wisdom is also sought from the case titled "Munir v. The State (2002 MLD 712 (Lahore)" wherein it has been held that bail sometimes was refused to an accused on the consideration of commencement of a trial, but that consideration was to be based purely upon propriety. Whenever a question of propriety was confronted with a question of right, the latter must prevail and commencement of a trial would pose no insurmountable hurdle in the way of bail when the accused was succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry.
9. On tentative assessm ent of the case I am of the view that case of applicant Syed Juniad Ahmed requires further enquiry, which entitles him for grant of bail. Consequently, the applicant Syed Junaid Ahmed is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 3,00,0001- (Rupees three lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
10. As regards the case of applicant Syed Adnan Ahmed learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant will be satisfied and will not press the instant bail application if directions are given to the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible and pass speaking and elaborate judgment/order in accordance with law. Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh recorded his no objection to such proposition.
11. Accordingly, the bail application to the extent of applicant Syed Adnan Ahmed is dismissed being not pressed with directions to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously and deliver judgment/order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months under compliance report to this Court. through MIT-II. The applicant may file fresh bail application if trial court fails to conclude the trial within stipulated time, if so advised.
12. It needs not to emphasize that observations made above are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not influence by such observations. 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.