ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

CR. BAIL A. NO.S-22 of 2015.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

Date of hearing and decision: 19.10.2015.

Irfan Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.G. alongwith ASI Nusrat Baloch I/O of the case.

Mr. Muhammad Aijaz Bawani, Advocate for the complainant.

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Applicant Mst. Moona W/o Shakeel Asim has applied for post-arrest bail in Crime No.174/2014, registered at Police Station Market , under sections 365-B and 34 P.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in F.I.R. are that Mst. Shahana wife of the complainant, aged about 40 years, performs her duty in Cultus Company at Hyderabad. She used to visit hospitals. On 05.06.2014, Mst. Shahana went to civil hospital. At that time, complainant was on his duty. At about 05.00 p.m. complainant received a call on his mobile from his mother-in-law and he was informed that his wife had not reached at home. On such information, complainant returned home and made calls to his wife on her mobile, but her both mobile phones were found switched off. Thereafter, complainant searched for his wife in the Civil Hospital, Hyderabad, but without any result. Complainant was present at his shop on 28.08.2014 at 12.00 noon, he was called by a shopkeeper, namely, Zafar and was informed that a woman was present at his house having some information with regard to his wife. Complainant immediately went to his house situated at Noorani Mohallah, Hyderabad and found a lady was present at his house, who disclosed her name as Mst. Rubina Naz widow of late Ahtshamuddin and told to the complainant that his wife Mst. Shahana has been abducted. She further told to the complainant that his wife has been taken to District Sanghar and accused Siddique, Mst. Jannat were involved in the abduction of Mst. Shahana. She further told to complainant that Mst. Shahna has been sold to unknown persons. Thereafter, complainant consulted his relatives and went to police station and lodged the F.I.R, it was recorded under sections 365-B and 34 P.P.C.

3. During investigation, Mst. Shahana wife of the complainant was recovered by the police on 27.10.2014 from Bakra Piri, Hyderabad from the possession of accused Siddique, Bachal, Ayaz and Ghulam Rasool. Statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Mst. Shahana was recorded by the police. She was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate-V, Hyderabad where her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was also recorded, in which, she has implicated the applicant/accused and others in the commission of alleged offence. Other accused persons were also arrested. On conclusion of investigation, challan was submitted against the accused under section 365-B and 34 P.P.C.

4. Bail application on behalf of applicant/accused Mst. Moona was moved, the same was rejected by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.12.2014.

5. Mr. Irfan Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant/accused is a woman and she is in jail for the period exceeding one year yet, trial has not been concluded. There was inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. It is further contended that co-accused Mst. Jamul has already been granted bail. It is also argued that Mst. Shahana had married with co-accused Bachal and no evidence has been collected regarding selling of Mst. Shahana by the applicant/accused. Lastly argued that applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. Case against the applicant/accused requires further inquiry. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant/accused relied upon the cases reported as Nazar Muhammad v. State (2009 P Cr. L J 855 (Lahore), Lal Muhammad v. State (2014 M L D 1183), Parvaiz v. State (2014 P Cr. L J 599 (Lahore) and Shamas Din v. State (2014 M L D 473).

6. Mr. Shahid A. Shaikh, learned A.P.G. assisted by. Mr. Muhammad Aijaz Bawani, learned counsel for the complainant, argued that Mst. Shahana in her 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements have implicated the present applicant/accused that she sold her to one Bachal, who compelled her for marriage. He has opposed the bail application.

7. I have carefully heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned A.P.G. and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

8. I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused for the reasons that applicant/accused Mst. Mona, being accused of alleged offence has been detained for such offence for a continuous period since 09.09.2014 yet trial has not concluded. Incident had occurred on 05.06.2014 and F.I.R. was lodged on 20.09.2014 with inordinate delay. Such delay has not been explained plausibly. It is also pointed out that co-accused Mst. Jamul has already been granted bail by the trial Court and the case of the applicant/accused is identical to that of co-accused Mst. Jamul. Mst. Shahana in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement has stated that applicant/accused sold her to co-accused Bachal. It is not mentioned that on which date, place and time applicant/accused sold Mst. Shahana to co-accused Bachal. Case has been challaned under section 365-B P.P.C. Apparently, ingredients of section 365-B P.P.C. are not attracted to the case of applicant/accused. Section 365-B P.P.C. reads as under:-

“[365-B. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced, or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing, it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.]”

Obviously, no material/evidence has been collected during investigation to connect the applicant/accused in the commission of offence. It appears at this stage that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant/accused Mst. Moona has committed alleged offence. Prima facie, case against applicant/accused requires further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The applicant/accused is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

9. Needless to mention that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court while deciding the case on merits shall not be influenced upon by such observations.

Bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE