ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Cr. Bail. Appl. No.S-472 of 2010
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
For hearing.
06.09.2010
Mian Taj Muhammad Keerio Advocate for applicants.
Syed Meeral Shah Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh
==
AHHMED ALI M. SHAIKH J: Through instant bail application, applicants Liaqat, Shahzad and Ahsan Ali seek post arrest bail in crime No.46/2010 of P.S. Shahpur Chakar District Sanghar registered u/s 365-B, 458 PPC.
2. The applicants approached the trial court for bail but their bail plea was turned down vide order dated 22.06.2010.
3. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case are that on 05.06.2010 at about 0200 hours, accused Shahzad armed with lathi, Ahsan armed with pistol and Liaqat armed with hatchet entered in the house of the complainant and forcibly abducted his wife Mst. Sanam and drove away in a black colour car. The FIR was lodged on 06.06.2010 by complainant Zafar Ali, who stated that above named accused entered in his house and abducted his wife Mst. Sanam with intention to commit zina or compel her for marriage.
4. It is inter alia contended that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this concocted case. Per learned counsel FIR was lodged after delay of 40 hours without any plausible explanation; ingredients of section 365-B and 458 PPC are missing in the present case. It is urged with vehemence that on 05.06.2010 Mst. Sanam (abductee) filed Cr. Misc. application No.777/2010 before Sessions Judge Hyderabad stating therein that she apprehends her life in imminent danger at the hands of her husband and his relatives. She categorically stated that on 04.06.2010 when she was present at her parents house to see her mother, where her husband and his relatives came there and tried to kill her. She had hardly saved her life and approached the court. In her application, she prayed that she may be provided protection and be sent to Darul Aman. Per learned counsel, on 05.06.2010 her 164 Cr.P.C statement was recorded by Civil Judge and J.M. X Hyderabad, whereby she categorically stated that she would be murdered by her husband, therefore, she may be sent to Darul Aman. On the very same day, she was remanded to Darul Aman for her safety. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that on 08.06.2010 she was produced before same Magistrate where her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.,C was recorded. In her statement, she stated that “on 05.06.2010 she appeared before Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on same day she was produced before Judicial Magistrate No.X Hyderabad, who at her request sent her to Darul Aman as she was apprehending her life in imminent danger. She further stated that her husband does not care and declared that he will contract second marriage. She further stated that now she wants to go with her parents and uncle Mushtaque and wants to get Talaq from her husband.” Per learned counsel, later on her subsequent statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded before J.M. I Shahdadpur in which she given quite different statement/version and stated that on 05.06.2010 while she was sleeping in her house, at about 2.00 a.m. accused Liaqat, Shahazad and Ahsan Ali came there and abducted her and brought her at Sessions Court Hyderabad. They engaged a counsel and later on she was produced before the court and on their directions she stated that she needs protection therefore, she was remanded to Darul Aman. Learned counsel contended that abductee has made three different statements and it is yet to be determined as to which one of the statements of abductee is correct, hence the case of the applicants/accused requires further inquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon the case of Abdul Latif & another Vs. the State (1997 P Cr. L J 1794 and Muhammad Shaheer @ Sher Vs. The state (2009 P Cr. L J 21).
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh for the state vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicants on the ground that their names appear in the FIR and they have been implicated by the abductee in her 164 Cr.P.C statement.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Upon perusal of the record, I find that in the present case Mst. Sanam has made three statements. On 05.06.2010 she was produced before Civil Judge and J.M. X Hyderabad where her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein she categorically stated that she apprehends her life in imminent danger at the hands of her husband, therefore, she may be sent to Darul Aman. Her subsequent statement was recorded on 8.06.2010 by same Magistrate whereby she did not level any allegation against the applicants but stated that on 05.06.2010 she appeared before Sessions Judge Hyderabad and subsequently she was produced before J.M. X Hyderabad, who on her desire and request remanded her to Darul Aman as she apprehended her life in imminent danger at the hands of her husband and she further stated that she may be set at liberty as she wants to go with her parents and uncle and she was released from Darul Aman. Again she was produced before Civil Judge and J.M. I Shahdadpur where her 164 Cr.P.C statement was recorded in which she implicated the applicants. Moreover, in her last statement, though she has implicated the present applicants but did not level any allegation of zina against either of the applicants. In Abdul Latif’s case supra, and in similar circumstances bail was granted to the accused. Similarly in Muhammad Shaheer’s case supra where the accused alongwith abdutee was arrested from a hotel situated on busy road. He was admitted on bail on the ground that neither the abductee raised any cry nor she made any complaint to any person regarding her alleged abduction and wrongful restraint. Admittedly in the case in hand, on 05.06.2010 abductee appeared before the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on same day she was produced before the Civil Judge and J.M. X Hyderabad where her statement was recorded and subsequently on 8.6.23010 again she was produced before same magistrate where her 164 Cr.P.C statement was recorded but she remained mum and did not raise any cry or disclosed that she has been abducted by the applicants. However in her third statement she implicated the present applicants. Keeping in view the above facts and contradictory statements of the abductee, it is yet to be determined as to which statement of the abductee is correct.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants have committed the offence punishable with death, imprisonment for live or for 10 years but there are sufficient grounds to believe that their case requires further inquiry. Consequently, I allow this application and admit the applicants on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
JUDGE
A.K