The applicants are accused in a case involving murder of six persons, namely Mehrab Khan, Sanjrani, Umed A.I Sanjrani, Jan Muhammad Sanjrani, Hamza Bhanejo. Syed A.I Sher and Dadan alias Allah Dad Wadho who were said to be faithful disciples of Peer Sahib Pagaro. According to interim Charge-Sheet dated 29-8-1977 submitted in the court of Sessions Judge, Sanghar, the incident had taken place on 7-10-1973 at about 2 a.m. When the said six persons (hereinafter referred as Hurs) were mercilessly killed by a Police posse comprising of accused Muhammad Yaqoob S. H. O., A. S. I. Shah Muhammad, H. C. Muhammad Aslam, H. C. Abdul Ghafoor, Police Constables Ghulam Qasim, Muhammad Muneer, woor Muhammad, Muhammad Asiam, Lai Khan, Mohammad Yousuf, A.I Nawaz and Sooba Khan at Kanan Mori over Mithero Canal in District Sanghar. The case of the prosecution with substance of accusations against the applicants as set out in the interim Charge-Sheet is as under :- "That some times in the month of October, 1973 one A.I Bux Junejo, a prominent member of Pakistan People's Party a close associate of accused Jam Sadiq A.I (the then Minister of Government of Sind) and a near relation of accused Muhammad Hassan Junejo and a friend of shah Nawaz Junejo, was murdered in the Sanghar Town. Thereafter accused Jam Sadiq A.I who was then holding the office of the Public Representative and was a prominent member of Govern--ment of Sind dashed down to Sanghar from Karachi and stayed in Inspection Bungalow. He, in collusion with accused Ghulam Shabbir, then S. P. Sangbar, accused Imdadullah Unar, then D. C. Saughar, accused Shah Nawaz Junejn, accused Mohammad Hassan Junejo and accused Muhammad Yaqoob, then S. H. O. Saoghar, hatched a criminal conspiracy to take revenge of the murder of A.I Bux Junejo. They suspected the followers of Pir Sahib Pagaro in this murder. Hence a number of disciples of Pir Sahib Pagaro were hauled up, detained at the Police Station, Sanghar and were subjected to mal--treatment.
On 6-10-1973, Mebrab Khan Sanjrani, Umed A.I Sanjrani, Jan Mohammad Sanjrani, Hamzo Bhanejo, Sy ed A.I Sher and Dadan alias Allah Dad Wadho who were faithful disciples of Pir Sahib Pagaro came to attend the Court of Accused Imdadullah Unar, who was then District Magistrate. Sanghar as they were facing Goonda Act proceedings. In furtherance of common object accused Imdadullah Unar, handed over the custody ,of the six persons named above to Sanghar Police from his Court showing them as absent in the Court's diary. They were taken to Sanghar Police Station, confined in lock-up and in evening were subjected to maltreatment and torture by Muhammad Yaqoob. H. C. Muhammad Aslam and other members of police party. On the same night at about 12-00 hours mid night while accused Jam Sadiq A.I, Imdadullah Unar, Ghulam Shabbir Kalyan were present in the Sanghar Police Station the six detenus, named above were taken out from the police lock-up, handcuffed and escorted in police van by the Police party headed by accused Muhammad Yaqoob, then S. H. O., Sanghar Police Station, under the instructions of the aforesaid accused In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy.
The police party consisting of accused Muhammad Yaqoob S. H. O., A.S.I. Shah Muhammad, H. C.
Muhammad Aslam. H. C. Abdul Ghafoor, P. C. Ghulam Qassim, P. C. Muhammad Munir, P. C. Noor Muhammad, P. C. Muhammad Aslam, P. C. Lai Khan, P. C. Muhammad Yousuf, P. C. A.I Nawaa and P.
C. Soba Khan took the aforesaid 6 disciples of Pir Sahib Pagaro towards Kanan Mori, District Sangbar. Accused Jam Sadiq A.I, Imdadullah Unar, Ghulam Sbabbir Kalyan, Shah Nawaz Junejo and Muhammad Hassan June/o followed the police van in two other vehicles. Near Kanan Mori Police van was stopped and the six detenus named above were brought down from the vehicle by the members of the police party under instruc--tions of accused Ghulam Shabbir Kalyan. They were separated into 2 groups of 3 each and made to stand in a line on either side of the M.....Under the instructions of Accused Jam Sadiq A.I, Imdadullah Unar and Ghulam Shabbir Kalyan, the police party, consisting of the accused persons named above, fired at the detenus causing instan-- taneous death of all the six persons. Accused Shah Nawaz Junejo and Muhammad Hassan Junejo then took out fire arms and ammunition from their vehicle, bred shots over them and planted firearms and ammunition on and near dead bodies of the six deceased, in order to show that they were killed in encounter with police. A false case of police encounter was concocted vide F. I. R. No. 92/73, under section 307, P. P. C. Of Sanghar Police Station on the instructions of conspirators.
Accused Mir Muhammad Lashari, who was then Inspector, C. I. A., Sanghar, investigated the said case, prepared false record with the intent to save the above-named culprits from the murder charges. He disposed of the Case No. 92/73 under cancelled class but the summary order has not received from the Court. After registration of the case I conducted investigation of the case, recorded statement of witnesses, arrested accused mentioned in column No. 3. Accused Shah Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Aslam son of. Ahmed Din, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ismail, Noor Muhammad, Muhammad Munir and Ghulam Qasim have made confessional statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Before the F. C. M., Hyderabad.
From the investigation it has conclusively been established that the accused named in Columns Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have conspired with each other, intentionally and wilfully committed murder of the six detenus/ deceased in order to take revenge as stated above and they thereby committed offence punishable under sections 302, 120-B, P. P. C. Accused Mir Muhammad Lashari however committed offence under sections 201, 218, 468 and 471, P. P. C. Besides acting in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Since the case is of heineous nature committed about 4 years back and suppressed and the offenders were shielded by the then authorities, hence the investigation could not be completed within the stipulated period. Some evidence is yet to be collected. Interim charge-sheet is therefore submitted with a request that 14 days adjournment may kindly be allowed for completing the remaining investigation."
2. In view of the fact that the incident relates back to 7th October, 1973 and fresh F. I. R. In the case was registered on 10-8-1977, it would be relevant to advert to a short history forming the background of the case.
3. The incident in which the six Hurs were killed was earlier reported as an encounter between Police and the said Hurs and :4. I. R. Regarding the alleged encounter was recorded at the Sanghar Police Station bearing F. I. R. No. 92/73 under sections 307, 332, P. P. C. Mr. Mir Muhammad Lashari (now accused in the present case) who was then Inspector, C. I. A., Sanghar, was entrusted with investigation in the matter but he had disposed of the case under cancelled clause, thus drawing curtain over the crime.
4. The present F. I. R. Was registered at the instance of complainant Mohammad Yaqoob. Ho had earlier also made a written complaint dated 11th October, 1973 to the then Inspector-General of Police, Sind, reporting the incident in question. According to the said complaint he had gone to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sanghar, on 10-10-1973 to lodge report but the Magistrate had declined to receive the same showing him the door on pain of meeting with similar fate. In the complaint he had taken courage to say that the alleged murders had been committed by Messrs Imdadullah Unar, Deputy Commissioner Sanghar, Ghulam Shabbir Kalyan, S. P. Sanghar, Yaqoob S. I. P. Sanghar, and Shah Mohammad S. I. P. Sanghar and about 15 other Police Constables, whose names, he said, were not known to him but could be found out from official records. The I G. Bad forwarded the said complaint to the D. I: G., Hyderabad for enquiry and report "within a week". The D.
I.G., Sardar A. R. Raisani, reported back that he had made necessary enquiry and confirmed that the six Hurs had been killed in an encounter with Police. In his report he placed reliance upon the F.
I, R. Dated 7-10-1973 registered at Sanghar Police Station. Besides the applicants and some other persons he also recorded statement of Mir Mohammad Lashari, the very Officer who had carried out investigation in connection with F. I. R.. No. 92/73. And obviously, his enquiry was hardly independent. In the end this Officer also introduced his own knowledge in the matter by stating that he personally knew that Sanjranis were criminals. He referred to souse incident of 1'945 in which one Sono Sanjrani was killed in an encounter with Rangers when this officer happened to be in command of some operation. The other facts alleged by him were in the nature of information received from some persons, which to say the least, was in the nature of hearsay and too vague to be relied upon in any serious investigation, and what is more, the inspector-General of Police, who had ordered enquiry appears to have remained satisfied by his performance.
5. Apart from the complaint lodged by Muhammad Yaqoob with the Inspector-General of Police on 11th October 1973, referred to above, a gruesome account of the alleged murders had also appeared in an Urdu Weekly Magazine known as 'Zindgi' of Lahore in its issue of 22nd, 28th October 1973, under the caption "Police Encounter or Incident of Murder".
The report in the said Weekly preceded with description of general atmosphere prevailing at Sanghar at the relevant time of the visit by the correspondent. Then account of events which had taken place on 6th and 7th October closing upon the murder of six Hurs was given in some details.
It was further mentioned that the police non, who had taken part in the alleged encounter with Huts wore given awards for "gallantry" by the then Inspector-General of Police and they were promoted, one and all, one step ahead of their existing ranks. The report concluded with the following clarion call :- "Challenge to the protectors of law.-District Sanghar is, today, looking at the just persons and the protectors of law of the entire country. Whatever is going on these days in Sanghar to bring the same on the record properly, a joint party of the National leaders should make tour of the entire district and demand for establishing a high powered judicial commission should be made, which should fully examine the facts hero and the Advocates of the entire country should use their abilities to get the evidence recorded and bring the excesses into the picture in this District."
However, this appeal which was addressed to "just persons and protectors of law" evoked no interest from any quarters.
6. After the administration was taken over by the Martial Law authorities on 5th of July 1977, Mohammad Yaqoob addressed a letter of complaint to the Martial Law Administrator Zone V.
Karachi can 1-8-1977. In the said letter he referred to his earlier complaint to the Inspector-General of Police, Sind dated 11-10-1973 and added that Jam Sadiq A.I, the former Minister to the Government of Sind, and the then Home Secretary to the Government of Sind were also responsible in the matter. He enclosed copy of Weekly Zindgi stating that the same contained details of incident given by a journalist regarding the said murders.
7. The present investigation was set in motion persaunt to the aforesaid complaint made by Muhammad Yaqoob and a case was duly registered and investigation entrusted to an Assistant Director F.1. A., Hyderabad.
8. A certified copy of the aforesaid complaint of Mohammad Yaqoob was filed with the Bail Application, while photostat copies of pages 7 to 10 of Weekly Zindgi, Lahore ware produced in Court by the learned counsel for the applicants and English Translation of the same has since been made part of the record.
The learned counsel for the applicants stated that the story printed inabout the incident had no evidentiary value, and this can hardly be disputed as a proposition of law. As reference to the same was made t;yl the complainant. Mohammad Yaqoob, in his complaint and he had relied upon the same making It part of his complaint, Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo himself produced photostat copy of relevant pages of the said journal to complete the picture. However, the story published in Zindgi contained contemporaneous account of the incident as was made known to the public and even a rumour of such a grave nature should have been taken note of by a civilized administration, for at least satisfying public anxiety and killing the scandal, if there was no truth in the allegations.
9. The applicants had earlier moved a ball application before the Sessions Judge Sanghar being, a Criminal Bail Application No. 77 of 1977, which was beard along with three other Bail Applications Nos. 78 to 80 of 1977 and disposed of by a common order dated 12-8-1977 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sadghar rejecting all the bail applications.
10. According to challan accused Shah Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Aslam son of Mohammad Ismail, Noor Muhammad, MohammadMuneer, Ghulam Qasim and Mohammad Aslam son of Ahmed Deen have made confessional statements under section 164, Cr. P. C. Before the First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad. Out of these Mohammad Aslam son of Ahmed Deen has turned approver in the case.
11. I heard Mr. Mohammad Hay at Junejo learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Abdul Hafeea Lakhoo, Advocate-General for the State at length.
12. The learned counsel for the applicants also produced certified copies of the statements of seven Police Officers recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. Making confessions. The Advocate- General produced photostat copy of the original complaint dated 11th October 1973 made by Mohammad Yaqoob to the then Inspector-General of Police, Sind, which had proved abortive, and he confirmed that the original of the said complaint was available on the record. He also produced photostat copy of report dated 16-11-1973 submitted by Sardar A. R. Raisani, the then D. I .-G., Hyderabad. He further produced true translated copy of F.I R. No. 92/73 initially registered at Sanghar Police Station under section 307, P. P. C. Regarding the alleged encounter with Police. This was done by him to controvert the admission made by the District Public Prosecutor before the learned Sessions Judge that the complaint dated 11-10-1973 had not till then been secured.
13. The learned counsel for the applicants in the first place streneously urged that the present complaint was very much belated as the same had been filed after a period of about 4 years and, therefore, the same was of no legal value. According to him even ordinary delay, in lodging of F. I. R.
In law is not to be favoured, much less the complaint in the present case which was filed after inordinate lapse of time.
According to Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo the evidence comprised of the confession of the approver A. S. I. Mohammad Aslam son of Ahmed Deen and confess; one of six other Police personnel, whose statements according to him could not be legally termed as confessions at all, because the same were exculpatory. The learned counsel contended that in any case confessions of co-accused could not be treated as evidence but only "a matter to be taken into consideration" and further the same could not be used to fill in gaps in the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel further stated that the earlier F.
1. R. In Crime No. 92 of 1973 contained prompt version of the incident and the same had not been proved to be false. He further stated that the so-called star witnesses of the prosecution, namely Ghulam Qadir and Slier Muhammad, stood condemned by their own earlier statements recorded on oath before a Magistrate as well as by their signatures on mashirnamas regarding the encounter. These witnesses, it was contended, bad earlier described the incident as an encounter with Police while in their statements recorded in the present investigation they had denied to have matte such statement or having signed mashirnamas. The learned counsel further contended that the statement of Abdur Rashid, Reader to the applicant Imdadullah Unar, regarding alleged falsification of Court Diary about the absence of the six Hurs on 6th October 1973 was contradicted by the official entry in the Diary itself. , He also contended that all the Seven Officers, who had made alleged confessions, were accomplices in the case and one accomplice could not corroborate the statement of another accomplice.
14. The learned Advocate-General strongly opposed the bail application and stated that the earlier investigation conducted by accused Mir Muhammad Lashari, who was then Inspector, C.
1. A., Sanghar, was proved to be false as he had prepared false record with the intention of saving the culprits from murder charges. He said that Mir Muhammad lashari has since been challaned for committing offence under sections 201, 218, 468 and 471, P. P. C., besides for acting in furtherance of conspiracy. He stated that there was enormous evidence connecting the applicants with the crime.
Mr. Lakhoo referred to the statement of Hakeem Malik Sher Muhammad, proprietor of Hashmi Unani Dawakhan-a, Sanghar, a qualified and registered Hakeem by profession, who had stated in his statement, recorded under section 161, Cs. P. C., that he was a friend of the deceased A.I Bakhsh Junejo and he was on a visit to the house of A.I Khan Junejo on 6th October 1973, where the applicants were also present. According to the said witness, Ghulam Shabbir Kalyan had asked Imdaduliah Unar a9 to 'where those persons were'. Thereupon Imdadullah is said to have phoned his P. A. And sent for his Reader Rashid and having talked to him on phone had informed Ghulam Shabbir Kalyan that the "said persons" had been handed over to police. This very witness was shown as having accompanied the police party on their round In the fateful night and signed Mashirnama regarding encounter. However, in his statement in the present investigation he denied having ever appeared before Ghulam Muhammad Memon, Mukhtiar kar and F. C. M., Sanghar, for making any statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. He stated that he had not seen any encounter between the deceased Hurs and the police nor had seen any dead bodies. He further stated that police had obtained his signatures on some blank papers under threats and coercion. The Advocate-General further referred to the statement of Ghulam Qadir. Whose name also appeared in the F. I. R. Dated 7-10-1973 as a mashir of the encounter. The statement of this witness recorded under section 161, ('r. P. C. Was on the same lines ay that of Hakeem Sher Muhammad. Mr. Lakhoo also relied upon 161 statements of P. Ws. Ghazi Khan and Rakhial Shah who had stated that they had been rounded up by the police a day earlier to the date of the incident and were kept in lock- up for interrogation when they had been the six Hours being first brought to the same lock-up and then taken out at night when the Police Officers had taken them away and the police party was followed in a Jeep in which Jam Sadiq A.I and the applicants were sitting. Khairuddin, Head Constable, also stated that he had seen the said Hurs in loot-up. He had also issued Guns and ammunition for Nakabandi and six handcuffs. The issuance of Guns, ammunition and six handcuff's, according to Mr. Lakhoo, was proved from the record of that police station. Mr. Lakhoo further referred to the statements of Mohammad Moosa, A.I Sher and Faqir Mohammad Yaseen, who had also seen the deceased Hurs in lock-up during the fateful night. Between the 6th and 7th October 1973. These witnesses had also stated that they had seen the deceased being taken out from lock-up ray the 7 Police men and had also seen the Police party beingfollowed by Jam Sadiq A.I and the applicant in a Jeep. He referred to statements of Mohammad Hassan and Sadoro who were present in Court of applicant Imdadullah Unar on 6th October 1973 in connection with the cases against the deceased and had seen the deceased having been handcuffed and delivered by the clerk of Imdadullah Unar to the police. Abdur Rashid. Reader to the applicant lmdadullah, bad stated that custody of the deceased was made over at the instance of the applicant Imdadullah to the then Head Constable Mohammad .Aslam. He further stated that the deceased were shown absent in the Diary and the applicant Imdadulluh had kept the case file with himself.
He referred to statement of one Mohammad Chuttal who stated that he was taking turn of water near the place of encounter and when after hearing the gunshots he attempted to go near Muneer, Ghulam Qassim and Mohammad Aslam son of Ahmed Deen the scene, the police party turned him away. Another prosecution witness,. Khairuddins had stated that he had seen some six persons in the lock-up on the fateful night but he did not find them there in the morning. He further pointed out that A.I Nawaz, Police Constable since deceased, and Mohammad Aslam son of Ahmed Deen, who were allegedly injured in the encounter, had in fact not received any gunshot injuries. A.I Nawaz had a concussion on his right shoulder and Aslam had concussion over his right ear. Dr. Mohammad Afzal, who had allegedly examined the injured and issued Medical Certificates bad since been examined in the present investigation and had stated that the injuries sustained by the said persons were caused by some hard substance like laths or stone or Butt of Gun. Aslam son of Ahmed Deen in his statement, recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. Stated that he was never taken to any Dr. For Medical Examination The learned Advocate-General, thus, supported his contentions by inviting my attention to all the above-mentioned pieces of evidence which, according to him, clearly and sufficiently connected the applicants with the crime. Mr. Lakhoo, therefore, contended that the confessions made by the 7 police officers were sufficiently corroborated by the aforementioned prosecution witnesses recorded during the investigation. He contended that the applicants were involved in heinous crime which had recently been uncovered due to the efforts of present Investigating Officer. He stated that the investigation was still in band, and the prosecution had recorded the statement of Ch. Fazal-e-Haq, the then Inspector-General of Police, under section 161, Cr. P. C. On 27-9-1977, and in the light of the same further investigation had become necessary which will take sometime before submission of final charge-sheet against the applicant.
15. As regards to the objection of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding delay in lodging the present report, Mr. Lakhoo stated that F. I. R. Dated 7th October 1973 could also be used for the purpose of conducting fresh investigation because on account of the influence of highly placed officials involved in the crime, in fact no investigation had been conducted D in the matter and real culprits had been shielded. In the F. I. R. Which was lodged by interested Police officials a case of murder eras subvertedly shown as an encounter. According to him the said F.
1. R. Proved involve-- ment of the accused police officers in the crime, and their presence in the encounter was an admitted fact. According to Mr. Lakhoo the complainant Mohammad Yaqoob, had. Clearly named the applicants in his complaint to the I: G., Sind dated 11th October 19/3 and the said complaint also was filed without investigation due to the influence of the high personalities named therein.
According to him it was a case of fraud played on the investigation and, therefore, nothing could be saved by fraud and the delay in starting fresh investigation, therefore, stood sufficiently explained. He concluded by saying that in the face of the evidence referred to by him it was clear that the prosecution was in possession of sufficient evidence against the applicants and at this stage merits of the said evidence could not be weighed or gone into and it was enough that there appeared reasonable grounds connecting the accused with the offence which was punishable with death or, transportation for life.
16. I have considered the facts of the case as brought on record by the learned counsel for the parties, looked into prosecution evidence referred to by the learned Advocate-General during the course of his arguments and have pondered over the same and given anxious consideration to the contentions raised and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
17. That as to the first objection raised by the learned counsel for the applicants regarding delay in filing of complaint by Muhammad Yaqoob, the explanation furnished by the learned Advocate- General has considerable merit. There may be circumstances which may be accepted as good explanation for delay and unusual circumstances may have to be explained by unusual events.
There cannot be clamped a rule of foreclosure on the nature of explanations which may be considered good as such a rule would be patently in aid of injustice, and each case would depend upon its own facts. If the custodian of law and order themselves commit crime the fate of enquiry in the matter may well be imagined. In the F. I. R. Dated 7-10-1973 those who were killed were shown as accused and dead men tell no tales The operation of killings, if it was allegedly engineered and designed, had necessarily to be covered up and for good reasons. The complainant Muhammad Yaqoob, notwithstanding the fact that the alleged accused wielded power and authority at the relevant time, had the audacity of filing complaint accusing the applicants of the crime soon after the incident on 11-10-73. According to Mr. Lakhoo the first I'. I. R. Of 7th October 1973 together with the complaint of Mr. Muhammad Yaqoeb dated 11-10-73 were sufficient for the purpose of re-opening the entire Investigation in the matter. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Abdur Rehmun v, State PLD 1975 SC 275 in which it was held that if an earlier report did not disclose the name of the assailant or otherwise give a counter-version, it could not discredit the F. I.
R. Recorded shortly thereafter. In the present case information regarding commission of a cognizable offence was duly made by Muhammad Yaqoob, in writing duly signed, to the Inspector- General of Police, who was the highest authority in Police Administration, and it is F understandable that such a complaint would not have been entertained by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, Sanghar, as the same was, directed against persons in authority of the same district and, therefore, is, the same was not entered as F. I. R. And was subjected to perfunctory! Enquiry it was entirely on account of callous negligence of the then Police' Administration.
The other contention of the learned counsel for the applicants, that the case of the prosecution depended on the confessions of the 7 Police Officers, one of whom had turned approver, did not constitute sufficient evidence connecting the applicants with the crime has no force in view of the value of evidence referred to by the learned Advocate-General.
PLD 1967 SC 539, it was held that the High Court is not to examine the merits of the prosecution case or the plea of defence in finding whether reasonable grounds appear for believing that the accused person has been guilty. Otherwise any expression of opinion about the merits of the case by the High Court may dispose of the case before the trial has started. In Ahmad Bakhsh and others v. Tire State 1969 SCMR 266 the Supreme Court has laid down that it was not for the Courts at the stage of bail to evaluate the evidence but merely to consider as to whether upon the material on the record such grounds for belief had been made out or not. Their Lordships went on to observe that one of the ways in which this could be done was to consider as to whether upon the material on the record, if no further evidence is called or no rebutting evidence is adduced, the accused can be found guilty or not. If he could be, their Lordships observed, then that would be a case where reasonable grounds do exist for forming tine belief required under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Court would be justified in refusing bail. In Farid v. Ghulam Hassan and others 1968SCMR924 the Supreme Court has laid down the rule that in dealing with applications under sections 497 and 498, Cr. P. C, the High Court is not required to enquire into merits of prosecution case or plea of defence. The Supreme Court affirmed the said dictum in Muhammad Shafiq v. Muhammad Hanif and another 1970 SCM R 143 as follows:- "it is now well settled that in determining question, as to whether reasonable grounds appear for believing that an accused person is guilty or not for the purposes of bail, the Court has not to examine the merits of the prosecution case or the plea of the defence or to make an appraisal of the material on the record but, merely "to look at the materials placed before it by the investigating agency and be prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence can be offered which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of guilt". Where a prima facie case, upon the taking of evidence, is found to exist, that is also ordinarily sufficient for holding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person charged with the offence is guilty. Under section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code all that is necessary is to see is whether "reasonable grounds" exist. Now "grounds" are entirely different from "evidence". "Grounds" may or may not constitute "evidence" but, nevertheless, they can be taken into consideration."
18. The question of the guilt or innocence of the applicants cannot, therefore, be judged at this stage. However, neither the facts justify nor the principles laid down in the above-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court favour the grant of bail to the applicants.
19. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove I would, therefore, dismiss the application for bail.