IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.929 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
15.05.2025
M/s
Saathi M. Ishaque, S.K. Lodhi and Ms. Faryal Ishaque, advocates for applicant
Ms.
Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh
Mr.
Riaz Ahmed Bhatti, advocate
for complainant
SIP
Gulzar Hussain of PS Shah Latif Town, Karachi
------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Shahzad Malik son of Muhammad Rafiq
seeks post-arrest bail in FIR No.1726/2024, registered at P.S. Shah Latif Town, Malir Karachi for
offence under sections 496-A/34, PPC read with section 3 of the Prevention of
Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018, after rejection of his bail plea by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Malir Karachi, vide
order dated 27.03.2025.
2. Briefly
the facts of the case are that complainant lodged FIR, alleged therein that
present applicant, who has visiting terms with complainant, has kidnaped his
wife Mst. Shabana in order
to commit Zina, hence the subject FIR against the present
applicant and his two companions under the above referred sections.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that complainant is not eyewitness of the alleged
incident and he has only shown apprehension of enticing his wife by applicant,
therefore, Section 496-A, PPC has been applied in the FIR, which is punishable
for 7 years and it does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of
section 497, Cr.PC; that the alleged abductee
returned back on 16.01.2025, she was produced before learned Magistrate
concerned on 18.01.2025, after two days, and the statement of alleged abductee has
been managed by the complainant in connivance of police, therefore, his case
requires further inquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.PC.
4. On the
other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by learned
counsel for complainant, vehemently opposed for grant of bail on the ground
that applicant is nominated in FIR and he has committed Zina
with the alleged victim along with co-accused and kept her in a wrongful
confinement in Punjab; that after few days of her abduction she was released by
accused and during investigation concerned Magistrate recorded her statement
under section 164, Cr.PC wherein she has fully
implicated the applicant in the commission of alleged offence; that alleged
offence comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, C.PC. IO
present in Court submits that he has finalized the investigation but still he
has not submitted interim challan before learned
concerned Magistrate, however, he has given opinion that the alleged offence
falls under Section 496-A, PPC.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant as well as Additional Prosecutor General Sindh,
assisted by counsel for complainant and perused the material available on
record.
6. No
doubt, complainant is not the eyewitness of alleged abduction but he has
implicated the applicant on the basis of suspicion. During investigation, the
alleged abductee voluntarily returned back home on 16.01.2025 and after two
days her statement under Section 164, Cr.PC was
recorded by learned Magistrate concerned wherein she has fully implicated the
present applicant in the commission offence. Alleged offence is punishable for
7 years and does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section
497, Cr.PC, the rule in such cases is bail and its
refusal is an exception, as held by apex Court in the case of Muhammad Tanveer versus State (PLD 2017 SC 733). Even otherwise, the
statement of alleged abductee under section 164, Cr.PC
was recorded after two days when she returned back home, which itself requires
further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC.
Therefore, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail, subject to furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred
Thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless
to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and
would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS