| Citation(s) |
|---|
| SLG 1936 (2019) 124 SLD 1936 (2019) 125 MLD 1569 |
Sindh High Court
Crl. Bail Applications Nos. S-328, S-335 and S-346 of 2018, decision Dated: 01-10-2018. Dates of hearing: 14th September and 01-10-2018.
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mukesh Kumar G. Karara and Sajjad Muhammad Zangejo
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Rehman Kolachi, Deputy Prosecutor General (in Crl. Bail Application No. S-346 of 2018).
Crl. Bail Applications Nos. S-328, S-335 and S-346 of 2018, decision Dated: 01-10-2018. Dates of hearing: 14th September and 01-10-2018.
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mukesh Kumar G. Karara and Sajjad Muhammad Zangejo
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Rehman Kolachi, Deputy Prosecutor General (in Crl. Bail Application No. S-346 of 2018).
GANGOO MAL AND OTHERS
VS
THE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 161,497,498
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302,365
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 365--- Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Specific role was attributed to the accused---Scope---Two petitioners, owners of godown, allegedly, with active participation of Police Officials (other three petitioners), kidnapped and murdered their employee on his demand of arrears/ salary---Petitioners contended that medical evidence was not in line with the ocular account---Record revealed that prosecution witnesses had fully supported the version of the complainant---Investigation Officer also recorded statements of Police Constables (other than the petitioners), who disclosed in their statement that accused police officials took away the deceased---Investigation Officer found all the petitioners guilty of committing the murder of deceased---Only tentative assessment was to be made at bail stage---Names of petitioners transpired in the FIR with specific role that owners of the godown (petitioners) called Police officials (petitioners), who took away the deceased and thereafter threw his dead body in front of shop of the petitioners (owners)---Petitioners had failed to bring on record any material to show that they had been falsely involved due to malice/ ulterior motives of the complainant or they had not committed the alleged offence--- Contention of the petitioners regarding medical evidence not being in line with the ocular account, could not be considered without a deeper appraisal of evidence---Ample evidence/ material, prima facie, was available on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged offence---Order granting ad interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners was recalled by the High Court, in circumstances. Riaz Ahmed v. The State 2009 SCMR 725 and Mumtaz v. The State 2012 SCMR 556 ref. Qamar Naseem alias Baitu Masih and others v. The State 2006 YLR 1221; Malik Sajid Ismaeel and others v. The State 2017 MLD 446; Sohail Zubair and 3 others v. Dildar Ali Khan and another 2017 MLD 836; Shah Zaman v. The State 2018 YLR 1800 and Muhammad Bashir v. Mirza Ali…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492