ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-295 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

03.09.2020

Ms.Farzana Abbasi, Advocate for the applicant

                        Mr.Javed Ahmed Buledi, Advocate for complainant

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

                        ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of    the culprits, in prosecution of their common object, abducted Mst.Komal, confined her illegally, she then was subjected to rape by co-accused Musawar under the pretext of being married with her and he then recorded video clip by putting her under pressure to make her say that she is married with him (Musawar), for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.

3.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party otherwise he has nothing to do with the alleged incident; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about seven days; Mst.Komal has married of her own accord with               co-accused Musawar; co-accused Mst.Naseem Khatoon and Mst.Najma Khatoon with utmost similar role have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. By contending so, she sought for release of the applicant on bail on point of further enquiry and consistency. 

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to applicant by contending that the applicant has facilitated the commission of the incident. In support of their contention, they have relied upon cases of Faqir Muhammad and 02 others Vs. The State (2010 YLR-457) and Muhammad Tariq Ilyas Vs. The State (2018 YLR-224).

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

6.        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about seven days and such delay having not been explained plausibly by the complainant could not be overlooked. Mst.Komal has returned to house of her father, the complainant under mysterious circumstances and no formal mashirnama of her recovery is prepared by the police, which appears to be significant. The allegation of rape is leveled against co-accused Musawar. The role attributed against the applicant in commission of the incident is only to the extent that he facilitated the commission of the incident. Whether the applicant actually has facilitated the commission of the incident? It requires determination at trial. More-so, co-accused Mst.Naseem Khatoon and Mst.Najma Khatoon with utmost similar role have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. In these circumstances, the applicant is found entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry and consistency. 

7.                    The case law which is relied upon by learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In those cases, the accused involved prima-facie were found guilty of the offence with which they were charged, therefore, the delay in lodgment of the FIR was ignored. In the instant case, the allegation against the applicant is only to the extent that he has facilitated the commission of the incident and two female accused with utmost similar role have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. 

8.        In view of above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

9.        The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly.

                              J U D G E