IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-227 of 2018

Applicant:                                          Tariq Hussain son of Manzoor Ali @ Muhammad Budhal, Through

Mr.Rashid Mustafa Solangi, Advocate

Respondent:                                      The State Through Mr. Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi                                                      A.P.G and complainant Shahmeer in person.  

Date of hearing          :                       09.07.2018               

Date of order             :                       09.07.2018   

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH. J- It is alleged that the present applicant/accused with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, abducted Mst.Sanam Khatoon daughter of complainant Shahmeer with intention to have a rape with her, for that the present case was registered.

2.                     On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kamber, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.                     It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party; there is unexplained delay of about 20 days in lodging of the FIR, Mst.Sanam has married of her own accord with the applicant; Mst.Sanam has denied allegation of rape in her 161 Cr.PC statement; the complainant and PWs are related      inter-se. By contending so, he sought for release of applicant on bail,                 on point  of further enquiry. In support of his contention he relied                   upon case of Hassan Ali Shah vs. The State (2017 P.Cr.L.J-85),                               (2). Case  of    Shafquat   Hussain  @   Vicky   vs.   The   State   (2016 P.Cr.L.J-93),  

(3). Case of Zafar Ali Khan vs. The State and others (2011 PCr.LJ-431) and        (4). Case of Muhammad Bilal and others vs. the State (2018 PCr.LJ-86).

4.                     Complainant has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he is still issuing threats of dire consequences to him and his witnesses.

5.                     Learned A.P.G has supported the order of learned trial Court.

6.                     I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

7.                     The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he with rest of the culprits being armed with deadly weapons, after keeping the complainant and his witnesses under fear of death abducted Mst.Sanam with intention to have rape with her. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. No doubt, the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 20 days, but there could be made no denial to the fact that it is explained in FIR itself. The delay even otherwise in such like case could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. Mst.Sanam when was produced before this Court in C.P.No.S-371/2018, categorically stated that she has not contracted marriage with the applicant but her R.T.I was obtained forcibly on “Nikahnama” as well as on her “free-will” statement. If the statement of Mst.Sanam before this Court is believed to be true then it proves beyond doubt not only abduction but preparation of documents by applying force upon Mst.Sanam on the part of applicant and others. Of course Mst.Sanam in her statement under section 161 Cr.PC has denied allegation of rape with her against the applicant but this fact is not enough to enlarge the applicant on bail as it was he, who not only abducted Mst.Sanam but kept her confined illegally and then forced her to sign certain documents in order to save him from legal consequences obviously. The complainant and witnesses may be related inter-se but their relationship is not enough to disbelieve them at this stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence, for which he is charged.

8.                     The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In case of Hassan Ali Shah (supra), the main reason for admitting the accused to bail was that there was unexplained delay of about three months in lodging of the FIR. In the instant matter, there is delay of 20 days in lodging of the FIR and it is explained plausibly. In case of Shafquat Hussain @ Vicky (supra), the main reason for admitting the accused to bail was that the victim joined the accused with her consent and FIR was found to be after-thought. In the instant matter, the victim on recovery has alleged abduction against the applicant and others and the FIR is not found to be after-thought. In case of Zafar Ali Khan (supra), the main reason for admitting the accused to bail was that co-accused with similar role were already found to have been admitted to bail. In the instant case, no co-accused with similar role has already been found to have been admitted to bail. In case of Muhammad Bilal and others (supra), the main reason for admitting the accused to bail was that he was found to be innocent by the police during course of investigation and the abductee made two different statements before two different Courts. In the instant matter, the applicant has not been found to be innocent by the police and the abductee is consistent on her statement.     

9.                    In view of facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely that no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently, the instant application is dismissed.

                             J U D G E

-