IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1031 of 2018
Mst. Maria
..
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
..
.Respondent
Date
of Hearing : 28.08.2018
Mr. Raham Ali Rind,
advocate for the applicant.
Mr.
Sagheer Abbasi, APG
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui,
J: The
applicant Mst. Maria is seeking post arrest bail in a case registered against her
vide crime No. 217/18, at PS. Surjani Town under Sections 365-B & 34 PPC.
2.
I
have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused record /
citations produced before me. From whatever submitted and placed before me
regarding the instant matter, I have gathered following observations:
(a)
The
allegation against the applicant is that she is involved in kidnapping of two
girls amongst them one is the daughter of complainant.
(b)
Allegedly,
both the girls namely Rukhsana (daughter of complainant) aged 11/12 years and
Saima (another girl of the neighbourhood) aged about 13/14 years were taken
away by a neighbouring woman Sumaira @ Sonia. Later on Sumaira handed over them
to one Azam from whose custody police recovered both the girls.
(c)
The name of the applicant does not appear within the
body of FIR but she was involved on the basis of the two girls statements
recorded under Section 161 CrPC before police.
(d)
Both the girls have quoted the name of a lady as
Aunty Maria but none of them has stated that she had seen her. In fact their
disclosure depends on information given to them or they had overheard the name
of applicant during conversation of other accused.
(e)
It is worth mentioning that neither a statement under
Section 164 CrPC before a Judicial Magistrate was recorded nor any
Identification Test Parade was held before a Magistrate.
(f)
At the time of recovery of the victims, the applicant
was not present at the place of recovery. It is alleged by the learned APG that
the accused from whose custody the girls were recovered is actually an employee
of the applicant but nothing on the record is available to support such
contention.
(g)
Presently, there is only allegations leveled against
the applicant by the victims and such allegations are also based on hearsay
evidence, which was reported by the two said girls to police.
(h)
It is also a factor that the prosecution did not
collect any material evidence to connect the applicant to such heinous offence
and to substantiate the allegations leveled by the alleged abductees.
(i)
Apparently, the prosecution is equipped with only
piece of evidence against the applicant in the shape of statements of abductees
recorded before police, which cannot be relied upon without corroboration,
which is not available at least at this stage.
(j)
The applicant is a woman, as such had a case cover
under the first proviso of Section 497 CrPC. Besides, in the existing position
of affairs, the case against the applicant requires further probe as such her
case also covers under Section 497(2) CrPC.
3.
The upshot of the above discussion is that a case of
bail is made out in favour of the applicant, as such she was admitted to bail
subject of furnishing a surety of Rs. 100,000/- up to the entire satisfaction
of the trial Court vide order dated 28-08-2018 and these are the reasons for
the same.
4.
The above observations are entirely tentative in
nature, as such the trial Court is required to proceed with the matter without
bearing the same in mind and make sure that these observations would not affect
the case of either side during trial.
5.
It is further observed that if after getting bail, the
applicant fails to appear during trial and will become abscond or fugitive to
trial than the trial Court will be justified to take any action against the
applicant and surety including cancellation of her bail without making a
reference to this Court.
J U D G E