IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

1st. Cr. Bail Application No. S- 02 of 2025

Applicant(s):                                       Zuhaib Ali and Suhail both sons of Ashique Hussain Junejo, through Messrs Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto and Wajid Huussain Jokio, Advocates.

The State:                                           Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh

Date of hearing: 03-02-2025

Date of order: 04-02-2025

O R D E R

Khalid Hussain Shahani, J:- Applicants Zuhaib Ali and Suhail are seeking post arrest bail in case Crime No. 104/2024, for offence under sections 457, 365-B, 34 PPC registered with police station Naudero. Such Request was turned down by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Larkana vide order dated 27.11.2024.

2.       At the outset, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the bail application for applicant Suhail is not being pressed, as he has already been granted bail by the learned trial court, namely the I/C. Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Larkana, through an order dated 21.01.2025. Consequently, the present application stands dismissed as not pressed with respect to applicant Suhail.

3.       Briefly stated, the facts derived from the F.I.R. lodged by Naveed Ali Junejo on 02.10.2024 are that on the night of 24.09.2024, he, along with family members, including his daughter Iram Khatoon aged about 18 years, was present in the house. At approximately 11:30 p.m., it is alleged that the applicant, Zuhaib Ali, accompanied by Abdul Rehman and two unidentified armed individuals, unlawfully entered the premises and abducted his daughter in a white-colored car parked outside the residence, with the intent to engage in illicit intercourse or compel her into marriage. After seeking counsel from local elders (Nek Mards), the complainant lodged the F.I.R. detailing these allegations.

4.       Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor General representing the State, and has thoroughly examined the material presented on record.

5.       The learned Counsel for the applicant primarily contended that the applicant is innocent and has been wrongfully implicated in this case due to an underlying matrimonial dispute, rendering the narrative presented in the F.I.R. unconvincing. It was further submitted that the alleged abductee had entered into a love marriage with one Majid Ali Chandio, as evidenced by the registered Nikahnama dated 14.10.2024 and a sworn affidavit of freewill placed on the record. The learned Counsel argued that the recovery of the alleged abductee was conducted in a questionable manner, and the abductee herself did not allege any commission of Zina by the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It was also emphasized that the applicant, Zuhaib Ali, was unlawfully detained at Police Station Naudero, during which the police allegedly demanded illegal gratification. Consequently, the applicant's mother, Mst. Akhtiar Begum, filed an application under Section 491 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Larkana, addressing the illegal detention of her son. Following the issuance of a Rule Nisi, a raid was conducted by the Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate-II, Ratodero, within the premises of the Naudero police station, where the applicant was discovered to be under arrest in the present case. The learned Counsel further argued that the significant delay in the registration of the F.I.R., without satisfactory explanation, indicates the possibility of deliberate consultation and fabrication of charges, thereby warranting the applicant's release on bail at this stage.

6.       On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh, raised objections and argued that the applicant is specifically named in the F.I.R. with an explicit role in the abduction of Mst. Iram Khatoon, along with three others. The version provided in the F.I.R. is further corroborated by the alleged abductee's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further asserted that the case against the applicant falls within the scope of the prohibitory clause as provided under Section 497(i) Cr.P.C., thereby justifying the dismissal of the bail application.

7.       Upon tentative evaluation of the record, it is evident that there is an unexplained delay of eight days in the lodging of the F.I.R., which raises the possibility of deliberation and consultation, a factor deemed detrimental to the prosecution's case. The record includes significant documents, such as the freewill affidavit of the alleged abductee and the registered Nikahnama, demonstrating that she entered into a love marriage with Ismail Ali Chandio on 24.10.2024. Therefore, yet to be determined at the time of trial, whether applicant has shared his intention in commission of alleged offence.

8.       Additionally, the recovery of the alleged abductee appears questionable, as she claims to have been taken to Sehwan, kept in an undisclosed house, and later managed to approach the Naudero Police Station. Furthermore, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. contains no allegations of Zina against the applicant. During the proceedings, the learned Counsel highlighted that the abductee subsequently entered into a marriage of her own choice, a fact conceded by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh. The learned Counsel also submitted a copy of the order dated 21.01.2025, issued by the learned I/C Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Larkana, granting bail to the co-accused Suhail. Notably, the complainant has exonerated the co-accused, which became main ground for bail. Therefore, the prosecution case rests on two conflicting versions. One set out in the F.I.R. and the other in the complainant's affidavit. This inconsistency also requires resolution at trial. The cumulative effect of these facts places the case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(ii) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the applicant is granted bail, subject to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) along-with a personal bond of the same value, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

          The observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

                                                                               J U D G E

S.Ashfaq/-