Samar Mehdi was arrested by the police on 5-7-1994 in connection with case F.I.R. No,225 registered under section 324, P.P.C. Muhammad Ashraf, S.I./S.H.O., petitioner herein was the Investigating Officer. While in police custody he died on 6-7-1994 on account of the severe torture received by him from the police. It was, however, shown that Samar Mehdi committed suicide by hanging himself with a rope. The District Magistrate ordered judicial inquiry which was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh. The inquiry officer found that the deceased was tortured in a cell privately established by the S.H.O. Muhammad Ashraf Condal. He further found that this torture cell was established by him for the purpose of corruption and violence was institutionalized by the S.H.O. He found that "death of Samar Mehdi had taken place at the hands of the S.H.O. Muhammad Ashraf Gondal".
2. Eight injuries were found on the dead body of Samar Mehdi in the postmortem examination.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was in police custody in connection with same case registered against him and there is no evidence that the fatal injuries were received by the deceased at the hands of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on 1980 SCM R 784 to contend that where it is not possible to attribute the fatal injuries to a particular accused person, then he has to be enlarged on bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that four of the prosecution witnesses have exonerated the petitioner in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. He has also argued that there is no direct evidence with regard to the actual torture done to the deceased. Learned counsel has further argued that from the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased it cannot be said that the petitioner or any other police official had the intention to kill him.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the deceased Samar Mehdi was done to death in a merciless manner in a privately established torture cell, as found by the Assistant Commissioner in the judicial inquiry. He has further submitted that medical board was constituted and the possibility of the suicide was excluded by it He has argued that not only the Assistant Commissioner but even the S.P. Crimes Branch found that the petitioner along with two others had committed the murder of Samar Mehdi by administering severe torture to him. He further argues that the trial has already commenced, in that, the charge has been framed and the case is now fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence on 29-1-1997. It is further submitted that two co-accused, namely, Ansar Khan and Farooq, Constables are still absconding. He has criticised the conduct of the petitioner, in that, he surrendered himself for the first time on 16-1-1996 but prior to that he has been evading his arrest, although his bail application had been dismissed from this Court on 16-10-1995. It is apprehended by him that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he will influence the prosecution witnesses as he has already influenced four prosecution witnesses by securing their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the petitioner has been found guilty in the investigation conducted by the senior police officer as also by the Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh in the inquiry.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant at quite some length. In view of the conclusions of the Assistant Commissioner made by him in the judicial inquiry and the findings of the S.P. Crimes Branch as recorded in Zimni dated 22-12-1994, at this stage it is difficult to say that there do not exist reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of the crime. Resultantly, I am not inclined to allow the bail application.
The same is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the trial shall be concluded expeditiously, and in any case within the next three months.