ORDER-SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. D- 70 of 2012.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
12.03.2013.
Present:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui,
Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah.
____
Mr. Ghulam Ali J. Rind, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for complainant.
Miss. Shazia, State Counsel.
~~~~
Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah, J: Through present application, the applicants Abdul Jabbar and two others seeks bail in Crime No.09/2012, registered at P.S Mohammadpur Odho, under Sections 365-A P.P.C and 6/7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. Brief facts of the case in hand are that on the fateful night, the complainant alongwith his nephew Muhammad Umar and others was sleeping in the courtyard of their shop, at about 2.00 a.m. they woke up on noise of motorcycles, saw in electric light five armed persons duly armed with deadly weapons, kidnapped Muhammad Umar, the nephew of complainant for ransom and fled away. The complainant then reported the matter to police.
3. Earlier bail application on behalf of the applicants filed before learned trial Court was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2012, hence instant bail application has been filed on the facts and grounds as set forth in the captioned bail application.
4. We have heard the arguments advance by Mr. Ghulam Ali J. Rind, Miss. Shazia State Counsel and Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for complainant, and also perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that names of the applicants do not transpire in the F.I.R, though the complainant party as well as applicants/accused are inhabitants of the same locality. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the grounds which he has already urged in the bail application and submitted that due to matrimonial affairs between applicant Abdul Jabbar with the complainant party a false case has been registered, however, co-accused are well wishers of accused and complainant party and they are residing within the same vicinity. Learned counsel next contended that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R without any plausible explanation and statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded after three days and submits that in view of the order given by single Judge of this Court on 1st February, 2008, reported in 2009 M L D 742, the applicants are entitled for bail.
6. Learned counsel for complainant assisted by learned State Counsel admitted that applicant Abdul Jabbar is inhabitant of same locality and at the time of incident he was not identified by the complainant party though the accused persons were found open faces at the time of commission of offence, but his name has not been shown in the F.I.R.
7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, more particularly keeping in mind that applicant Abdul Jabbar was known to the complainant prior to incident, but he has not been nominated in the F.I.R, therefore, we are of the considered view that applicant Abdul Jabbar is entitled for grant of bail, he be released on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, reasonable grounds exist to believe that applicants Noor Hassan and Noor Muhammad are prima facie involved in the commission of heinous offence of kidnapping of abductee Muhammad Umar for ransom and as such they are not entitled for concession of bail at this stage, therefore, bail is declined to them. However, the directions are issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within three months period and after recording the evidence of material witnesses including complainant these applicants may repeat bail application, is so advised.
8. These are the reasons of our short order dated 12.3.2013.
Judge
Dated:
Judge