IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.2230 of 2025
[ Syed Zain Ali versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
09.03.2026
M/s Aftab Ali Mastoi & Raza
Hussain Shaikh, advocate for applicant
Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G. &
Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
IO/SIP Aslam Pitafi of PS `Surjani
Town
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicant/accused Syed
Zain Ali son of Syed Taimoor Ali seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.808/2025,
registered at P.S. Surjani Town, Karachi, for offence under Sections 365-B,
342, 376, 337-J, 34, PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-X, Karachi West vide order dated 12.08.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.05.2025, daughter of complainant,
working in Lucky One Mall, left home for work but did not return till 10:00
p.m., hence the subject FIR against unknown persons.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that this is a case of two version as the alleged
abductee has recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.PC wherein she
implicated 5 accused persons, namely, Zain Ali, Rabi Rashid, Muteeb, Asawar and
Ahtisham; that she was produced before learned Magistrate, however, learned
concerned Magistrate refused to record her statement under Section 164, Cr.PC
on the ground that she has already stated such facts in her statement under
Section 161, Cr.PC; that IO once again produced her before learned concerned
Magistrate and her statement under Section 164, Cr.PC was recorded on
10.07.2025 wherein she deviated from her earlier version and only implicated
present applicant, hence the case of present applicant requires further inquiry
in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC.
4. Complainant/alleged
victim has shown her confidence 0n learned A.P.G. and learned A.P.G. 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 learned
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 extra-ordinary relief in the
shape of pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.G. and perused the material available
on record.
6. Applicant
is not nominated in the FIR, police has not recovered her but she voluntarily
appeared before the police where her statement under Section 161, Cr.PC was
recorded by the IO in which she implicated 5 accused persons, namely, Zain Ali,
Rabi Rashid, Muteeb, Asawar and Ahtisham for the commission of alleged offence;
that counsel for applicant has placed on record bail granting order of
co-accused Rabi Rashid and Ahtisham by learned trial Court vide order dated
14.07.2025 on the ground that alleged victim did not support the prosecution
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). Co-accused have been admitted on bail
by learned trial Court and the case of the present applicant is on identical
footings and he is also entitled for the same relief. 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 29.08.2025 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