IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No.  S- 271 of 2021.

Applicant:                Muhammad Ali Solangi, through Mr. Saeed Ahmed Panhwar, Advocate.

Complainant:          Muhammad Yousif, present in person.

Respondent:             The State, through Mr. Muhammad Noonari, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of Hearing:                 12.07.2021.

Date of Order:                     12.07.2021.

O R D E R

Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J:       Through the captioned bail application under Section 497 Cr. P.C, the applicant Muhammad Ali son of Ahmed Khan Solangi is seeking post-arrest bail in respect of cognizable offense registered on 26.05.2021 on behalf of complainant Muhammad Yousif at Police Station Radhan Station, being FIR No. 45/2021, under Sections 365-B, 511, 354, 34 PPC, with an unsuccessful attempt to secure bail in that regard having earlier been made vide like application preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu, where the case is stated to be pending.

Concisely the version of the events depicted in the aforesaid crime and the accusation made against the applicant is that of grappling the wife of the complainant and attempted to drag her from the house. Such report of the incident was made before the concerned Police station on 26.05.2021. Finally, the applicant was arrested and booked in the aforesaid crime. He being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with his arrest in the aforesaid crime, preferred bail application No.728 of 2021 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu, however, his plea was rejected vide order dated 10.06.2021 on the ground that he is connected with the offense charged with and attempted to commit the heinous offense of abduction of a lady by entering into the house of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in the instant case the bare reading of the FIR speaks that the alleged victim has not been abducted or kidnapped by the applicant/accused, therefore, the basic ingredients of the offense under Sections 365-B is yet to be proved in the trial. In the instant case, the statement of the complainant does not show that any force was allegedly applied by the accused in taking the alleged victim from the house; hence the ingredients of offense of kidnapping or abduction are not satisfied, especially in the circumstances when nothing has been committed rather an allegation of attempt to commit an offense has been leveled, which is yet to be proved in the trial.

The complainant who is present in person submits that the applicant has ruined his life therefore he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned D.P.G has supported the impugned bail order dated 10.06.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu and prayed for dismissal of the bail application of the applicant.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed that occurrence of purported attempt to take away the wife of the complainant from his home by the applicant, took place on 25.5.2021, whereas the same was reported on next day, as such ingredients of the offense of Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, etc., rape, as well as sections 511 and 354 P.P.C are yet to be thrashed out by the learned trial court.

Alleged eye-witness of the incident claimed that the applicant/accused was armed with the weapon, and no recovery of such weapon was made from the applicant/ accused by the police during the investigation which is for the trial court to see whether the ingredients of offenses as discussed supra are made out or otherwise. The applicant is behind the bars since his arrest i.e. 27.5.2021 and statement of the victim is yet to be recorded by the learned trial Court. There is delay of one day in lodging of the F.I.R., which requires further enquiry.

From the tentative assessment of the record, the applicant Muhammad Ali has made out a case for post-arrest bail in FIR No. 45/2021 of Police station Radhan Station for offenses under Section 365-B, 511, 354, 34 PPC. The applicant shall be released on post-arrest bail in the aforesaid crime subject to furnishing his bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One hundred thousand rupees) with one surety and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

            These are the reasons for my short order dated 12.7.2021 whereby I have granted post-arrest bail to the applicant in the aforesaid crime.

JUDGE