IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.330 of 2026
[ Mst. Mumtaz Begum versus The
State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
--------------------------------------------
10.03.2026
Mr.
Ayaz Ahmed Khoso, advocate
for applicant
Mr.
Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.
& Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
M/s
Zeeshan AHmed Qazi and Riaz Ali Qazi, advocates for complainant
SIP/IO
Yousaf Naimat of PS Malir City
-------------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Mst. Mumtaz Begum wife of Tahir Abbas seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.497/2025, registered
at P.S. Malir Cantt. for
offence under Sections 380, 381, 34, PPC, after dismissal of his bail plea by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Malir Karachi
vide order dated 28.11.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the prosecution case are that FIR was lodged by Sana Khursheed wife of Khursheed
Hassan Sabzwari on 16.11.2025 at 1800 hours at PS Malir Cantt., alleging therein
that she hired a maid Shanzay daughter of Muhammad
Ahmed through a resident lady of Askari-V on
28.10.2025, on monthly salary of Rs 20,000/-, who
stayed in the house due to household needs. The complainant and her husband
often left for work, leaving Shanzay alone at home.
During their absence, another maid Mst. Mumtaz, working in the adjacent flat, frequently visited Shanzay which information came to her knowledge later. On
04.11.2025, upon checking her wardrobe and bedside drawers, complainant found
her gold ornaments missing, which include one chain with locket set, one pair
of ear rings, one additional gold chain, three ladies rings, two diamond nose
pins and cash Rs.15,000/- (including one-thousand rupee notes). Upon suspicion,
she interrogated maid Shanzay, who allegedly
confessed that she had stolen the jewelry on 03.11.2025 and handed it over to Mumtaz. She further stated that the mastermind and
supporter of both maids was Noman, who allegedly
asked for and facilitated removal of the stolen items. On the basis of this
disclosure and after consultation, the complainant nominated Shanzay, Mumtaz and Noman alleging theft of gold ornaments (approx. 45 50
grams) and cash from her home.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and she has been
falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intentions and ulterior
motives; that though she is nominated in the FIR but she was not working in the
house of complainant; that co-accused Shanzey was a
maid in the house of the complainant and she committed theft of gold ornaments;
police arrested her but she was released by learned Magistrate after getting
P.R. Bond; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant to
connect her in the commission of offence; that alleged offence does not come
within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC,
therefore, her case requires further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC.
4. On the
other hand, learned A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant, opposed
for grant of bail on the ground that applicant is nominated in the FIR and she
is a member of syndicate, who used to commit theft by using minor children from
the houses; that during investigation baby Shanzey
was arrested but learned concerned Magistrate released her on P.R. Bond and now
she is absconder; that co-accused Shanzey during
investigation admits that she has handed over the robbed gold ornaments to
present applicant which are yet to be recovered from her possession, therefore,
IO needs her custody.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.G., learned counsel for complainant and
perused the material available on record.
6. Applicant
is nominated in the FIR and serious allegations have been leveled against her
that she is a member of gang, who used to commit theft from the houses by using
minor girls. In the present case, police arrested baby Shanzey,
aged about 12 years, and she admits about committing theft and some gold
ornaments also recovered on her pointation and disclosed
that she handed over gold ornaments to present applicant. She was produced her
before learned concerned Magistrate for remand but the learned Magistrate
released her on P.R. Bond. Now she is absconder. I have observed that learned Magistrate may
grant bail to co-accused baby Shanzey but he released
her on P.R. Bond and now she is absconder. I have also observed poor
investigation conducted by IO in the present case, which reflects that either the
IO is incompetent or he is mixed up with the accused persons. Therefore, SSP Investigation
District Malir Karachi is directed to transfer the
investigation of this case from present IO SIP Yousaf
Naimat and entrust the same to some other competent,
dedicated and honest officer, not below the rank of inspector to finalize the
investigation of this case. Applicant fails to make out her case on the point
of mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate her which is
pre-requisite condition for grant of bail as held by apex Court in the case
reported as 2020 SCMR 249. No case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out,
hence interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant by this Court vide order
dated 30.01.2026 is hereby recalled and the instant criminal bail application
is dismissed.
7. The observations
made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of
either party at trial.
8. Office
is directed to communicate this order to learned MIT-I as to examine whether
learned Magistrate has rightly released baby Shanzey on
P.R. Bond; if he has exceeded his powers, matter may be referred to the
competent authority for action against him in accordance with law.
9. Instant criminal bail application is
disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS