IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl. Bail Appln. No. S- 189 of 2018.

Applicant:            Suhno Khokhar, through Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, Advocate.

Complainant:       Saifullah Channo, through Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate.

The State:             Through, Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.

Date of hearing:    11.06.2018.

Date of Order:      29.06.2018.

O R D E R

Khadim Hussain Tunio, J:    Through instant application, applicant Suhno son of Ali Bakhsh Khokhar seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.17/2018, of Police Station Mirokhan (District Kamber-Shahdadkot @ Kamber), registered under Sections 452, 365-B, 148 & 149 P.P.C.  His similar prayer was declined by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 29.03.2018.

2.       Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that, on 02.03.2018 complainant Saifullah appeared at P.S Mirokhan and reported the matter that on 27.02.2018, when he, his brother Nasrullah and nephew Tarique Ahmed were present in the house alongwith his daughter namely Asiya aged 13/14 years, as such at about 06.00 a.m. accused Suhno, Zahid having pistols, Ali Bux with lathi accompanying one unknown person entered into his house and on show of force of weapons over powered them. It is further alleged that accused Suhno by holding daughter of complainant from her arms dragged her and all the accused persons abducted her away by putting her in the vehicle.

3.       Learned counsel for the applicant, mainly contended that, the F.I.R is delayed for three days and the explanation furnished by complainant for such delay is not plausible and satisfactory. Next contention of the learned counsel was that, all the witnesses are closely related to each other; therefore, they are interested in the case of prosecution. Learned counsel further contended that, malafide on the part of complainant are clear from the fact that he has roped all the members from one and same family. Per learned counsel, there are general allegations against all the accused. Learned counsel further contended that alleged abductee has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointation. It was further contended that, co-accused Allah Bux and Ali Bux have been extended concession of bail by trial Court and case of present applicant is on same footings, therefore, he also deserves same concession and treatment on the basis of rule of consistency. He has placed his reliance on cases reported in 2011 MLD Karachi 1380, 2003 MLD Lahore 398, 1994 P.Cr.L.J 2133 Karachi, and 2008 SCMR 173.

4.       Conversely, learned A.P.G and learned Advocate for complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant, on the ground that the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of holding abductee from her arms, dragging and abducting her away alongwith co-accused and that the abductee has not yet been recovered, as such her life, liberty and honor is at stake; that the offence with which the applicant is charged is heinous one and falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

5.       Perusal of the F.I.R reflects that the applicant has been nominated therein with specific role of holding abductee from her arms, dragging and abducting her away on show of force of weapon. No doubt there is delay in recording F.I.R, but it has been fully explained by the complainant in the body of F.I.R. However, in such like cases, since honor of the parties remains involved, therefore, they at first instance attempt to settle the matter privately. Moreover, no malafide are alleged against the complainant to falsely involve the applicant in the case and till date the abductee has not been recovered. The offence with which the applicant is charged falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. As for as contention of learned counsel that co-accused Ali Bux and Allah Bux with similar role have been granted bail by trial Court is concerned; perusal of F.I.R would show that those co-accused have not been assigned role of holding, grabbing and dragging the abductee, but such specific role has been attributed to applicant, therefore, his case is dis-similar from case of said co-accused and does not attract principle of consistency. As for s the case law cited by the learned counsel is concerned, suffice to say that there is no cavil with the principle laid down in the referred cases but same are not applicable with the facts and circumstances of the present case and based on different facts and  circumstances of the applicants’ case.

6.       For the foregoing facts and circumstances, the applicant does not appear to be entitled for concession of bail. Accordingly, instant bail application stands dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to proceed with case expeditiously and decide the same preferably within six months.

7.       It is pertinent to state here that whatever observed herein above is tentative in nature and will not prejudice case of either party at trial.

                                                                JUDGE

Ansari/*