ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-452 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

08.10.2020

Mr.Asif Ali Abdul Razzaq Soomro, Advocate for applicant

                        Mr.Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate for complainant

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of    the culprits, abducted Mst.Azeema, aged about 18 years and Mst.Sumaya alias Seema, aged about 14 years, both daughters of complainant Inayatullah, with intention to subject them to rape,       for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, 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 police; the name of the applicant is not appearing in FIR though it is lodged with delay of about one day; Mst.Azeema has married with co-accused Awais Ahmed of her own free will and she has sought for quashment of very FIR by preferring C.P.No.D-2747/2020 (Re.Mst.Azeema and others Vs. P.O Sindh and others) before Honourable High Court of Sindh, Karachi; Mst.Sumaya alias Seema has returned to her parents under mysterious circumstances and then has implicated the applicant and others by making statement u/s.161/164 Cr.PC; the DNA report is not implicating the applicant in commission of the incident and the very case on investigation is recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention, he has relied upon case of Muhammad Nauman Hanif Vs. The State and another (2016 SCMR-1399).   

4.        It is contended by learned D.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant is neither innocent nor is involved in this case falsely; he is fully involved in commission of the incident by victim Mst.Sumaya alias Seema by making 161/164 Cr.PC statement; the delay in lodgment of the FIR is explained plausibly; the DNA report is managed one and summary for cancellation of the case has not yet been approved by the Magistrate having jurisdiction, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail on point of further inquiry. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon case of Nasreen Bibi Vs.The State (2015 SCMR-825).

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

6.        The name of the applicant is not appearing in FIR though it is lodged with delay of about one day. Mst.Azeema has sought for quashment of very FIR by filing a petition before Honourable High Court of Sindh, Karachi, by stating therein that she has married of her own free will with co-accused Awais Ahmed. Mst.Sumaya alias Seema on return no doubt has implicated the applicant and co-accused Murtaza, Awais and Akhtar in commission of the incident by making statement under section 161/164 Cr.PC, but such allegation is negated by Forensic and Molecular Report, wherein it is opined that the applicant is not found to be contributor of male DNA/Semen stains/Sperm fractions identified on vaginal swab, sample of victim Mst.Sumaya alias Seema. The very case on investigation is recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class. In these circumstances, the applicant is found entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry.

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. It was Sessions Trial case, yet the accused was admitted to bail by a Magistrate in excess of his jurisdiction. It was in these circumstances, the bail granted to the accused was cancelled by the Honourable Apex Court.

8.        In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- 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