ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No. 1709 of 2016
__________________________________________________________________
Date Order with signature of Judge
__________________________________________________________________
For hg of bail application
11.01.2017.
Mr. Noor HussainJamali, advocate for applicant.
Mr. Zahoor Shah, A.P.G.
1. Complainant Bilal is present in person and submits that he does not intend to engage any counsel.
2. Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant Zakir @ Muhammad Saleem son of Darya Khan seeks post arrest bail in Crime No. 419 of 2016, registered at P.S. Surjani Town, Karachi, under section 496-A/ 34 P.P.C. The earlier bail applications of applicant were dismissed by the learned trial Court i.e. XV Judicial Magistrate, Karachi-West, vide order dated 19.11.2016 and learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Karachi-West in Bail Application No. 2194/ 2016, vide order dated 26.11.2016.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant Bilal son of Mehboob Jamal has lodged afore-mentioned FIR on 30.09.2016, stating therein that on 08.08.2016 at 09:00 a.m., he went to his work while his wife, namely, Bilqees, aged about 21/ 22 years was present in house along with two children. At 12:00 noon he was informed by the wife of his neighbor Nasiron telephone that his wife Bilqees was not present in house and his children were crying, on that he reached home where he found his wife missing, he kept searching for her and when it came into his knowledge that Zakir and Masar had enticed away his wife with intention to commit Zina with her, he lodged the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that there is delay of two and half month, which has not been explained by the complainant; that in fact the alleged abductee had herself left the house of her husband due to bad matrimonial affairs; that the alleged abductee recorded her statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. before the Investigating Officer, stating therein that neither she was abducted nor kidnapped by any one and she went to the house of her maternal grandfather; that the alleged abductee subsequently recorded her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate on 17.10.2016 after delay of two and half months, wherein she has implicated the accused with commission of alleged offence; that the alleged abductee was not recovered from the possession of applicant and she herself appeared before the Police Station from the house of her mother; that as per the 164 Cr. P.C. statement of alleged abductee, she resided at the house of sister of the applicant where she had all the facilities even from there she talked to her uncle but surprisingly she did not make any hue and cry if she was detained forcibly by the applicant, hence it is a fit case of further inquiry.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.G. has opposed this application for grant of bail to the applicant, however, he admitted that as per her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. the alleged abductee had made contact with applicant/ accused to engage a counsel for obtaining Khula from the complainant.
6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
7. The applicant/ accused is in judicial custody since 17.10.2016 and after completing the investigation, the police has submitted the challan before the Court of Law, hence the custody of the applicant is no more required by the police. The alleged offence, being punishable up to seven years, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P.C. As per statement of alleged abductee, recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C., she remained under detention at the house of sister of the applicant but surprisingly she did not make any hue and cry, hence the fact that she had left the house of the complainant with her freewill or she was enticed away,is yet to be determined after a full-fledged trial. Hence, the applicant/ accused is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits and if applicant in any manner tries to misuse the concession of bail, it would be open for the trial Court to cancel his bail after issuing him the requisite notice.
JUDGE