ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S-  625  of 2010

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

            For hearing.

11.11.2010

Mr. Riaz Ali Memon, Advocate for applicant.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State.

                        =

This order will dispose of Criminal Bail Application No.S-625-2010 filed by the applicant Naeem Ali whereby he seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.96 of 2010 of Police Station Shahdadpur for an offence U/s 365-B PPC.

Applicant approached the trial Court for bail but could not succeed as his bail plea was turned down vide order dated 20.8.2010.

Contents of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 26.4.2010 complainant Ali Anwar Siyal lodged the report stating therein that on 16.4.2010 his sister Ambreen went to Madarsa for education. After some time, his cousin Manthar Siyal came at their house and informed that while he was sitting near Madarsa, he saw accused Allah Jurio, Mumtaz and Naeem who abducted Mst. Ambreen while she was coming to Madarasa. The accused came by a car, out of which accused Naeem caught hold Mst. Ambreen and bundled her in the car and drove away towards Saeedabad. Mst. Ambreen was raising cries. Complainant party alongwith villagers followed the said car but could not succeed. Later on, complainant appeared at Police Station and registered the case.

It is inter alia contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this concocted case; the FIR is belated by 10 days without any plausible explanation; per learned counsel Mst. Ambreen had left her parents house on her own accord and contracted marriage with applicant and in this regard she has filed petition before the Sessions Judge, Lahore. Per learned counsel Mst. Ambreen has also filed C.P.No.706/2010 before the High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur in which she has impleaded her father as Respondent No.3 as in memo of petition she has clearly stated that she left the house of her parents on her own accord. Learned counsel further contended that on 10.4.2010 the abductee had contracted marriage with applicant. In support of his contentions, he has placed on record the copy of Nikahnama as well as 164 Cr.P.C statement of Mst. Ambreen which was recorded before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Lahore.

Learned D.P.G for the State did not controvert the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

Heard and perused the record.

Upon perusal of FIR, it appears that alleged incident had taken place on 16.4.2010 whereas the FIR was lodged on 26.4.2010 with delay of 10 days for which complainant did not furnish any plausible explanation. Record further reveals that in C.P.No.S-282/2010 Mst. Ambreen was produced by SHO PS Shahdadpur and her statement was recorded whereby she had denied her marriage with the applicant but stated that her thumb impressions were obtained on some papers while she was unconscious. In her statement in the above proceedings, she did not level any allegation of Zina against the applicant nor she stated that she was kidnapped by the applicant. It appears that her 164 Cr.P.C statement was recorded before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Lahore in which she has categorically stated that she has contracted marriage with applicant on her own accord, neither she had been abducted nor was subjected to Zina. She further stated that in respect of her abduction, a case has been registered against her husband and in laws which is false and fabricated. In view of Nikahanam which is placed on record, 164 Cr.P.C statement of alleged abductee and Constitutional Petition filed before the Sukkur Bench of this Court, it appears that case of applicant requires further inquiry. Moreover, the validity or otherwise of the Nikahnama cannot be determined in criminal proceedings for which proper forum is Family Court and the alleged abductee has not approached the Family Court in this regard.

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that applicant has successfully made out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, vide short order dated 11.11.2010 he was granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One lac) and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Above are the reasons of said short order.           

JUDGE

Tufail