IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

Cr. Bail Application No. 2193 of 2014 

 

DATE                         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

                                   

For hearing of Bail Application.

 

13.06.2016

 

Mr. Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. S.M. Shafiullah, advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Abrar Ahmed Kichchi, A.P.G.

 

                                                ORDER

 

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ,J:-  Through captioned post-arrest bail application, applicant Muhammad Aijaz has impugned the order dated 18.07.2014, passed by the Court of learned I-Addl: Sessions Judge, Karachi-West, whereby his earlier bail application was declined.

 

2.         Relevant facts spelt out from instant application are that complainant Imdad Ali lodged FIR on 20.06.2012 alleging therein that on 14.06.2012 at night, he along with his family went to sleep and in morning he found that his daughter Fozia alias Razia aged fifteen years was missing and complainant tried his best to find out her but couldn’t succeed and also found that his neighborers namely Muhammad Nawaz, Ghazala alias Robina (his daughter–in-law) and Aijaz (present applicant) have vacated their rented house and shifted to somewhere during night, hence instant FIR.

 

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated by the complainant for ulterior motive; that applicant was arrested on 19th March 2013 and since then he is behind the bars; that alleged abductee has contracted marriage on 14.10.2012 with one Muhammad Riaz son of Muhammad Amir at Khushab, such nikahnama is available at page 37 of the file. Learned counsel further emphasized that alleged abductee also filed a direct complaint before the Magistrate of Joharabad Distt: Khushaab against the complainant, which is available at page 39 of the file. Learned counsel further contended that statement of abductee was also recorded by the learned Magistrate, which is available at page 41 of the file, whereby she has denied the allegations of her abduction and confirmed that she was married with Muhammad Riaz and is also pregnant; that there is no direct evidence regarding involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence.

 

4.         Learned counsel for the complainant contended that name of the applicant is mentioned as Vakil in the Nikahnama while his name is also mentioned in FIR regarding commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel relied upon two case law reported in 2011MLD 340 and 2006 MLD 296.

 

5.         Considering the above circumstances, learned A.P.G. extended  no objection to for grant of bail.

 

6.         Heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, which emanates that incident occurred on 14.06.2012, while FIR was lodged on 20.06.2012 and no plausible explanation has been furnished by complainant regarding the delay caused in lodgment of FIR. Perusal of Nikahnama, Memo of Direct Complaint and Statement of alleged abductee Mst. Razia reflects that she had denied the allegation of abduction and stated that she was married to Muhammad Riaz and presently she was pregnant.  Indeed, applicant is behind the bars since 19.03.2013 and prosecution has failed to conclude the trial by producing its witnesses before the trial Court, which reflects that complainant is not serious to conclude the trial but he wants only to keep the applicant behind the bars. It is significant to mention that neither the applicant was recovered from the custody of present applicant nor her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and even she remained in Khushaab after filing of direct complaint against the complainant. Admittedly, investigation has been completed and applicant is no more required further hence his further detention will not serve any useful purpose.

 

7.         Considering the above facts and circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out his case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicant is admitted on post arrest bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/= with PR bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.   

 

8.         The observation made here are in tentative in nature, the trial Court shall decide the case of applicant strictly on merits.

 

 

                                                                                                      J U D G E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zahid Baig

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

Cr. Bail Application No. 1442 of 2015 

 

DATE                         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

                                   

 

 

For hearing of Bail Application.

 

 

06.06.2016

 

 

Mr.  Abdul Wahab Baloch,  advocate for the applicant.

Applicants are also present.

Mr. Abdullah Rajput, A.P.G.

 

 

            Learned counsel for the applicant, under instructions of his client, does not press the instant bail application.  Learned A.P.G. present, has no objection.

 

Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed as not pressed.

 

 

                                                                                                         J U D G E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zahid Baig