IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.3264 of 2025
[Bibi Sakina wife of Asif Khan alias Saifullah versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
02.03.2026
Mr. Rawas
Khan, advocate along with applicant/accused
Mr. Sharafuddin
Kanhar, A.P.G. & Ms. Rukhsana
Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
Ms. Sumera
Wadho, advocate a/w
complainant
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicant/accused Bibi Sakina wife of Asif Khan alias Saifullah seeks
pre-arrest bail in FIR No.565/2025, registered at P.S. SIE-A, Karachi, for offence under Sections 365-B/34,
PPC read with Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act,
2018, after rejection of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X,
Karachi West vide order dated 11.11.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that daughter of complainant, namely, Javeria,
aged about 17/18 years, studying in class X in Rashid Minhas
Public Academy School left for school on 04.10.2025 at 0745 hours but did not
return home. Upon inquiry he came to know that his daughter was kidnapped by Hayatullah son of Sameen Khan
with intent of marriage or to commit zina. Later on,
he went to the house of Hayatullah’s sister Bibi Sakina at Steel Town and
from her phone he talked with him but he refused to return back his daughter,
hence the subject FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that in fact alleged abductee Mst. Javeria got married with Hayatullah,
who is brother of applicant. He placed on record photostat
copies of Nikahnama, affidavit of freewill and
application filed by Mst. Javeria
against her father for protection; that case of applicant requires further
inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC on that
basis that this is a case of two version.
4. On the
other hand, learned A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant, has
opposed for grant of bail on the ground that alleged abductee has fully
implicated the applicant for commission offence in her statement recorded by
concerned Magistrate under section 164, Cr.PC and
submits that the alleged offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause
of Section 497, Cr.PC, hence the applicant is not
entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.G., learned counsel for
complainant and perused the material available on record.
6. Learned
counsel for applicant has paced on record photostat
copies of Nikahnama and Affidavit of Freewill of Mst. Javeria (alleged abductee)
and application filed by her under section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.PC
against her father. Thereafter, she got recorded her statement under Section 164,
Cr.PC, wherein she deviated from her earlier version
and implicated her in this case. From tentative assessment of material
available on record, it appears that this case of two version, which calls for
further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. It
is settled proposition of law that merits of case can be considered at bail
stage as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ijaz
versus The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Sufficient grounds are available on record,
which make the instant case of further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. In view of such position, interim pre-arrest bail
granted to the applicant/accused by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 is
confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
7. Needless
to mention here that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, the
same would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
8. Instant
criminal bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS