ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
 
Crl. Bail Application No.512 of 2012
Crl. Bail Application No.40 of 2012

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

Date                           Order with signature of Judge

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

PRESENT:          MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI

     MR. JUSTICE SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR_

 

DATE OF HEARING 30.07.2012

 

Mr. Ch. Mohammad Yasin Advocate for the Applicant in Crl. Bail Application No.512/2012.

 

M/s Abdul Saeed Qureshi and Syed Dushad Hussain Shah Advocates for the Applicant in Crl. Bail Application No.40/2012.

 

Ms. Seema Zaidi APG.

 

 

Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi J;             By this common order, I intend to dispose off two Crl. Bail Applications Nos.512 and 40 of 2012 as both the aforesaid Bail Applications have arisen out of one and same FIR bearing No.919/2009 registered under section 365-A PPC read with Section 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at P.S. K.I.A., Karachi.  

 

          Brief facts of the case are that  the complainant Nasir Mehmood lodged FIR No.919/2009 with Police Station Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi under section 365-A PPC about the abduction of his employee namely Farhan Ali son of Gul Chaman and demanding ransom from the complainant. After completion of the investigation present Applicants Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and others were reported against before the Administrative Judge (ATC), High Court of Sidh, Karachi vide Charge-Sheet No.502/2009 under section 365-A, 109/34 PPC, 7(e) ATA. Present Applicants Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Rana Khalid filed separate Bail Applications in Special Case No.81/2009 before the Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Karachi, which were dismissed vide orders dated 30.11.2011 and 02.05.2012 respectively.

 

M/s Ch. Mohammad Yasin, Abdul Saeed Qureshi and Syed Dushad Hussain Shah Advocates for the Applicants contended that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case in collusion of the Complainant with the Police. It is further contended that co-accused Moin Mirza was granted bail in this matter and the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration such fact at the time of passing the impugned order.  It is urged by the learned Counsel that no specific role has been assigned to the Applicants during investigation and the complainant admitted in the FIR that prior to this incident, there was pending litigations against absconding accused namely Mon Mirza son of Muhammad Ayub Mirza. It is further urged that the Applicants are not previously convicted persons, nor involved in any criminal activities and their long detention in jail for indefinite period will not serve any purpose of the prosecution. Learned Counsel further contended that both the Applicants are permanent resident of Karachi and there is no likelihood of their absconsion and the question of tampering evidence does not arise as there is no evidence against the Applicants. According to learned Counsel the case of the Applicants is of further inquiry and they are entitled for grant of bail.

 

Ms. Seema Zaidi learned APG opposed the grant of bail and submits that the Applicants are involved in a heinous offence of kidnapping for ransom and a huge amount was demanded and was received as ransom for release of the abductee. She further contended that the identification parade of the present Applicants as well as other accused was held through eye witnesses Chaman, Farhan and Shahzad, who identified the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate No.15, Karachi-East as such the Applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.

 

          We have heard M/s Ch. Mohammad Yasin, Abdul Saeed Qureshi and Syed Dushad Hussain Shah Advocates for the Applicants, Ms. Seema Zaidi learned APG and have perused the relevant material available on record with their assistance.

 

At the very outset it was pointed out that provision of sub-section 2 of section 21-D ibid, impose restriction on the powers of the court to grant bail to the accused facing the trial under the provision of Anti Terrorism Act, punishable for death sentence or life imprisonment or more than R.I. for 10 years. Admittedly the accused have been charged for the offence punishable with capital sentence under section 7(e) of ATA 1997 read with section  365-A PPC as such the case of the accused falls within four corners of prohibitory clause of sub section 2 of Section 21-D ibid.

 

On tentative assessment of material available on record, it is revealed that after the arrest of the accused identification parade of the Applicants was held before the Judicial Magistrate wherein they were identified by the victim Farhan Ali and other witnesses, which at present is also strong piece of evidence against them to deny the concession of bail at this  stage. The prosecution witnesses who identified the Applicants during identification parade had no reason for false implication of the accused in the case. The accused have been charged with the heinous offence of kidnapping for ransom which offences are presently committing very frequently by the bandits in our country and such increase of the offences regarding kidnapping for ransom is very alarming for the society.  At the time of arrest of the Applicants deadly weapons were recovered from their possession and separate cases under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance were registered against them. The material available on record prima facie connects the Applicants/accused with the commission of offence as such they are not entitled for grant of bail and bail Applications are meritless.

 

          Above are the reasons of our short order dated 30.07.2012, whereby instant Bail Applications were dismissed.

 

          Observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any such observations.

 

 

J U D G E

 

Karachi.

Dated: ______________                                                               J U D G E