ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Bail Appln. No.D-546 of 2011.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

20.10.2011.

1. For orders on M. A. No.2159/2011.

2. For Hearing.

Miss Rubina Dhamrah, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Shahid Ahmed Jatoi, State Counsel.

-----------------------

1. Granted.

2. In the F.I.R it is alleged that on 27.11.2010 father of the complainant was seen talking with three accused persons and who took away the father in a car. It is further claimed that the complainant party tried to locate the father, but could not. On 02.10.2010 a call was received from mobile number of the alleged abductee and ransom was demanded. The complainant side could collect only Rs.150,000/- and Nizamuddin and Abdul Majeed went to pay the ransom. However, the father was not returned because the amount was not adequate to meet the demands of the alleged abductors. On 07.05.2011 a skeleton was recovered and subsequent DNA test of 22.08.2011 confirmed to be that of father of the complainant. Learned Counsel submiutted that applicant is not named in the F.I.R and has been implicated in the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C of Nizamuddin and Abdul Majeed, who, it is stated in the F.I.R, went to pay the ransom. Learned Counsel submitted that although it is claimed in the F.I.R that Nizamuddin and Abdul Majeed went to pay the ransom on 05.10.2010 and F.I.R was lodged on 27.11.2010, name of the present applicant has not been disclosed in the F.I.R and has only been stated in the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C recorded after registration of F.I.R. Learned Counsel submits that no recovery has taken place and all that the two witnesses have stated regarding the applicants is that they were found standing there without any overt role being ascribed to them.

Learned State Counsel stated that since the witnesses though claimed that they saw the applicants on 05.10.2010, remained quiet till the recording of the F.I.R, which was done almost 52 days after the date claimed by the witnesses and this claim has not been explained in any manner or sense whatsoever. He, therefore, did not oppose the bail application.

Consequently, bail application is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail upon his executing P.R bond for a sum of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

JUDGE