IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Criminal Bail Appln. No. S-762 of 2024

 

 

Applicant

 

Abdul Hameed

 

 

Through M/s Ashique Ali Jatoi, Naseer Ahmed Wasggan and Wajid Ali Gaad, advocates

 

 

 

Complainant

 

Ghulam Muhammad

(in person)

 

 

 

The State

 

Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State

 

 

 

Date of hearing

 

03-03-2025

Date of order

 

03-03-2025

O R D E R

OMAR SIAL, J.- Abdul Hameed seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No. 84 of 2024, registered under sections 366A, 458, 376, and 34 P.P.C. at the Warah police station. The F.I.R. was registered on 03.09.2024 on the complaint of Ghulam Muhammad Abbasi. Abbasi recorded that he was at home with his family the previous day when four people entered the house. They were identified as Sarfaraz and Ayaz, while two remain unidentified. Sarfaraz caught hold of the complainant’s daughter Maryam and took her with him.

2.      I have heard the counsel for the applicant, the D.P.G., and the counsel for the complainant.

3.      Upon a tentative assessment, it appears that Maryam and Sarfaraz married each other on 05.09.2024 and that a petition at the Hyderabad Circuit of this court was also filed by them seeking protection from their relatives. The applicant is one of the two unidentified people mentioned in the F.I.R. When queried, the complainant’s counsel said that the name of the present applicant was given four days after the alleged incident by the complainant’s son, Ghulam Mustafa. However, he could not explain why his name was not included in the F.I.R. when Ghulam Mustafa admittedly claims that he was present when the incident unfolded and that the applicant was known to the complainant party. The learned counsel could also not explain why in the 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by Maryam on 16.09. 2024, and then again, in her section 164 Cr.P.C. statement on 18.09.2024, she did not name the applicant as one of the accused. No recovery has been affected from the applicant. Even according to the F.I.R., there was no overt role, but presence was alleged against the applicant. The case against the applicant is therefore, one of further inquiry.

4.      He is admitted to bail against a surety of Rs. 100,000/- and a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the trial court's satisfaction.

 

JUDGE

Abdul Salam/P.A