IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.148 of 2026
[
Suleman son of Dostain
vs The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
06.02.2026
Mr.
Muhammad Waseemuddin A. Shaikh,
advocate a/w applicant
Mr. Sharafuddin
Kanhar, APG & Ms. Rukhsana
Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
-------------------------------------------
Applicant
Suleman son of Dostain Bugti seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.583/2025, registered
at P.S. Gulshan-e-Maymar,
Karachi, for offence under Sections 365-B, 34, PPC, after rejection of his bail
plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Karachi West vide order dated 08.01.2026.
Facts
of the prosecution case as stated in FIR are that on 08.12.2025 at about 2300
hours, daughters of complainant, namely, Farhana and Fareeha, went missing from his house, who have been
kidnapped by his neighbours, namely, Suleman Bugti, Noorul Hasan Bugti
and Khan Muhammad Bugti, with intention to commit Zina, hence the subject FIR.
Learned
counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intention and ulterior
motives; that alleged abductees Mst. Farhana and Fareeha have
contracted marriage with Noor Hassan son of Mir Dost and Khan Muhammad son of Naseer Khan, respectively; that their statements were
recorded by learned concerned Magistrate under section 164, Cr.PC
wherein they have categorically stated that they have contracted marriage by
exercising their right of freewill and a false FIR has been registered by the
complainant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed on
record photostat copies of Nakihnamas,
Affidavits of Freewill and statements under Section 164, Cr.PC
(available at Pages 41 to 67).
On
the other hand, learned A.P.G., assisted by Mr. Khan Muhammad, advocate, who
has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, opposed for grant of bail on
the ground that applicant is nominated in FIR and the alleged abductees are
minors; that the alleged offence fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of
Section 497, Cr.PC.
Heard learned counsel for applicant; learned A.P.G. as
well as learned counsel for complainant and perused the material available on
record.
Admittedly, there is delay of one day in lodging of
FIR, without any plausible explanation; it has come on record that both the
alleged abductees have contracted marriage by exercising their right of
freewill; that during investigation both the alleged abductees were produced
before learned concerned Magistrate, where their statements under Section 164, Cr.PC were recorded wherein they have categorically stated
that they have contracted marriage with co-accused Noor Hassan and Khan
Muhammad by exercising their right of freewill and that they have not been
abducted. In view of such statements recorded by learned concerned Magistrate,
case of the applicant requires further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its
various pronouncements, such as, 2025 SCMR 1596 (Ejaz
Ahmed Chaudhry versus The State), 2025 SCMR 1509
(Hafiz Farhat Abbas versus the State) 2024 SCMR 1528
(Mst. Ishrat Bibi versus the State). Moreover, merits of the case cannot
be considered in pre-arrest bail as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in
the cases of
Muhammad Ramzan versus Zafrullah
(1986 SCMR 1380) and Muhammad Ijaz versus The State
(2022 SCMR 1271). Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the
applicant/accused above named by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2026 is
confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
The observations made
herein above are tentative in nature, the same would
not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
The instant
criminal bail application is accordingly disposed
of.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS