IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.1791 of
2023
Before:
Mr. Justice
Naimatullah Phulpoto
Justice Ms.
Kausar Sultana Hussain
-----------------------------------------------
20.09.2023
M/s Muhammad
Ismail Meo & Muhammad Adeel Meo, advocates for applicants/accused
Mr. Khadim
Hussain Khuharo, Addl: P.G. Sindh
Mr. Abdul Hakeem
Jakhro, advocate for complainant
-------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Applicants/accused Amir son of Muhammad Tahir and
Zaheer son of Zewar Khan seek post arrest bail in Crime No.27/2023, registered at P.S. Steel Town, Karachi for
offences under Sections 342, 506, 365-A, 34, PPC read with section 7 of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 25-D of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Applicants/accused
applied for bail before the trial Court, the same was rejected vide order dated
09.08.2023.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR
are that the complainant is a landlord and deals with the properties. On
15.01.2023, he went to Thatta with some work and returned back in the evening.
He was informed by his son Ayaz that his younger son Abdul Aziz was called by
Musharaf Pathan at Green Hotel and Ayaz dropped Abdul Aziz at hotel. The
complainant dialed cell number of Abdul Aziz but the same was powered off.
After 10/15 minutes, complainant received a call from cell number of Abdul Aziz
0311-2472308, on which accused Musharaf Pathan was speaking, who demanded from the
complainant money for release of his son Abdul Aziz and was restrained, not to
disclose such fact to police. His son Ayaz disclosed to the complainant that
there were two vehicles, on which 6/7 persons boarded. Complainant approached
the police station concerned and FIR of such incident was lodged vide Crime
No.27/2023 for offences under Sections 342, 506/B, PPC. However, during the
course of investigation, Sections 365-A, PPC and Section 7 of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were added.
3. Learned advocate for applicants/accused mainly contended
that there was business transaction between the parties and applicants/accused
have committed no offence; that statements of PWs were recorded under section
161, Cr.PC with inordinate delay, for which no plausible explanation has been
furnished; that the identification parade was not conducted as per rules and ingredients
of offences are not made out and prayed for bail.
4. Mr. Khadim Hussain Khuharo, learned Additional Prosecutor
General Sindh, assisted by counsel for the complainant, argued that applicants/accused
were picked up in identification parade by abductee Abdul Aziz, he remained in
the captivity of accused for seven days; that the ransom was paid to co-accused
Musharaf Pathan. Additional Prosecutor General opposed the bail application.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the relevant record.
6. It
appears that the present incident occurred on 15.01.2023, FIR was lodged on 16.01.2023, ransom was paid by complainant Muhammad Hassan
to main accused Musharaf Pathan on 22.01.2023 through PW Khuda Bux and his
cousin Rasheed. Abductee PW Abdul Aziz
remained in the captivity of accused for seven days. His 161 Cr.PC statement
was recorded on 08.02.2023, in which he has fully implicated accused Aamir.
Identification was held before VI Judicial Magistrate, Malir Karachi on 11.03.2023,
abductee Abdul Aziz picked up applicant/accused Amir whereas PW Khuda Bux
picked up applicant Zaheer in the identification parade. Yet evidence of abductee Abdul Aziz has not
been recorded by the trial Court. Delay in lodging of FIR is not alone ground
for grant of bail in such a heinous offence. Contention of the defence counsel
that there was business transaction between the complainant and applicants/accused,
can only be appreciated at trial. At this stage,
deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible under the law.
7. Prima facie, there appears reasonable
ground for believing that the applicants/accused have
committed an offence, punishable with death or imprisonment of life. No case
for grant of bail to the applicants/accused is made out. Resultantly, instant
bail application is dismissed. However,
trial Court is directed to decide the case, preferably within a period of two
months.
8. Needless to mention that the observations made herein above
are tentative in nature, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same
while deciding the case of the applicants/accused on merits.
J U D G E
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS