IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl.
Bail Application No.S-676 of 2021.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
For
hearing of Bail Application.
O R D E R.
20-01.2022.
Mr. Muhammad Qayoom Arain,
Advocate for applicant/accused.
Mr.Zahoor Ahmed Lund,
Advocate for complainant.
Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, D.P.G
for the State.
-.-.-.-
AMJAD
ALI SAHITO, J.- Through the
instant bail application, applicant/accused Gul Hassan alias Guloo son of
Muhammad Hassan, bycaste Lund seeks post arrest bail in crimeNo. 53/2021,
offence under sections 365-B PPC registered at police stationSetharja District
Khairpur Mir’s. Prior to this, applicant/accused filed such bail application
before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IVKhairpur, who has
dismissed the same vide order dated 30-06-2021 and the said order has been
assailed before this Court.
2. The
details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail
application and F.I.R., same could be gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached
with such application, hence needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. It
is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused
that applicant/accusedis innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case;
that there is inordinate delay of 17 hours in lodgment of the FIR, for which no
plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that no specific
role has been assigned to the present applicant/accused; furthermore nothing
has been recovered from him as such the applicant/accused is entitled for
concession of bail.In support he has relied upon Kashf alias Kashi v. The State (
2009 YLR 1500), PirBux and 7 others v. The State ( 2011P.Cr.L.J 380), Qadeer
and another v. The State (2017 YLR Note 283) and Wali Khan v. The State (2020
YLR Note 53).
4. On
the other, learned D.P.G for the State with the assistance of learned counsel
for the complainant has vehemently opposed for grant of bail on the ground that
applicant/accused is nominated in the FIR, the offence under section 365-B PPC falls
under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and the alleged abductee in her
statement has implicated the applicant/accused in the commission of offence as
such he is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. I
have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material
available on the record with their assistance.
6. From
perusal of record it reflects that name of applicant/accused very much transpires
in the FIR with specific role that he along with co-accused abducted Mst.
Haseena and detained her at some unknown place, subsequently she was recovered
and produced before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-II Mirwah wherein her
statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded in which she has clearly stated
that on the day of incident two accused persons namely Murtaza and Gul Hassan
(present applicant) and third accused Muhammad Ali entered into the house and
all accused persons on the show of weapons abducted her and subsequently took
her in Car to city Shikarpur after giving her intoxication and left her at
Dargrah. Now she came to know thataccused
namely: Murtaza and Gul Hassan (present applicant) have been arrested by
the police, ultimately on her choice she was handedover
to her father. The ingredients of section 365-B PPC are very much applicable and
the punishment provided by the law is life imprisonment. During investigation,
the Investigating Officer has recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs, who have
fully supported the version of the complainant.Learned counsel for the
applicant has failed to point out any ill will or malafide on the part of
complainant to falsely involve the applicant/accused in the commission of
offence. It is well settled principle of law that at the bail stage only
tentative assessment is to be made. It seems that the applicant/accused is
involved in the heinous offence and his case scarily flaws within the
prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
7. In
view of above discussion, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has failed
to make out a good case for grant of bail in the light of sub section (2) of
Section 497 CrPC, therefore, the applicant/accused is not entitled for concession
of bail and same is dismissed accordingly.
8. Needless,
to mention that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and
would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
Judge
Irfan/P.A