IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Misc.Application No.S-194 of 2018

Applicant               :                Mst.Zareena w/o Mir Muhammad Magsi

                                                            Through Mr.Abdul Razzak Jamali, Advocate

Respondents           :              The State through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar,

A.P.G.

Mr.Anwar Ali Janwari, Advocate

for private respondent/accused Ali Khan

Date of hearing      :               14.09.2018          

Date of order         :               14.09.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The applicant/complainant by way of instant application u/s. 497(5) Cr.PC has sought for cancellation of bail which is granted to private respondent/accused Ali Khan by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot.

2.                The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant application are that the private respondent/accused Ali Khan with rest of the culprits allegedly in furtherance of their common intention, after keeping complainant Mst.Zareena under fear of death, abducted her son Saleem only to satisfy their matrimonial dispute with her, for that the present case was registered.

3.                It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent/accused Ali Khan with rest of the culprits only to satisfy his matrimonial dispute with the applicant/complainant has abducted her son Saleem, he was prima facie is connected with commission of the incident yet was admitted to bail by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, ignoring the fact that the abducted boy has not yet been recovered. By contending so, he sought for cancellation of bail to the private respondent/accused Ali Khan.

4.                Learned A.P.G for the State supported the impugned order.

5.                It is contended by learned counsel for the private respondent/accused Ali Khan that no incident as alleged by the applicant has taken place, the FIR of the incident was lodged by the applicant/complainant malafidely with delay of about one and half month by hiding her son Saleem only to satisfy her matrimonial dispute with private respondent/accused Ali Khan who is her close relative. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant application. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Muhammad Rafique vs.Iftikhar Ahmed & others (2000 SCMR-161).

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

7.                The FIR of the incident apparently has been lodged with delay of about one and half month to the incident which is appearing to be natural in case like present one. The parties are already disputed over matrimonial affairs. The offence is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 (2) Cr.PC. The private respondent/accused Ali Khan was admitted to post arrest bail by leaned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, on point of further enquiry, which has not yet taken place in shape of trial.  

8.                In view of facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely that no case for recalling of bail order/cancellation of bail to the private respondent/accused Ali Khan is made out. Consequently, the instant application is dismissed.

                                                                            J U D G E