ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

 

Criminal Bail Application No. 91 of 2017

 

Applicant:                             Adnan s/o. Mumtaz Khan, through M/s

                                                Shahabuddin Ghauri & Asif Iqbal Qadri, Advocates.

 

Respondent:                          The State, through Ms. Rahat Ehsan, DPG.

 

Complainant:                        Abid Hussain s/o. Allah Ditta (nemo)

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

Date of hearing:                    13.02.2017

Date of order:                        13.02.2017

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

 

O R D E R

 

Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:-    After rejection of his bail before arrest application bearing No. 1438 of 2016 by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, vide order dated 08.12.2016 and bail after arrest applications in Criminal Case No. 97 of 2016 by the learned IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, Malir, Karachi, vide order dated 03.01.2017 and Criminal Bail Application No. 16 of 2017 by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, vide order dated 11.01.2017 the applicant/accused Adnan s/o. Mumtaz Khan, through instant criminal bail application seeks post arrest bail in Crime No. 208 of 2016, registered at PS Ibrahim Hyderi, Karachi under Section 496-A/34 P.P.C.   

 

2.         Brief facts as per F.I.R. are that on 08.11.2016 at 1000 hours the complainant, namely,  Abid Hussain s/o. Allah Ditta left his house for work and returned at 2000 hours but his wife, namely, Mst. Aysha aged about 18/19 years was not available in the house; hence, he informed his relatives and searched for her. Thereafter, his neighbor, namely, Adnan (applicant/accused) informed him on phone that his wife was with them and he should take her, but when he went to him, his wife was not handed over to him and it was thereafter the complainant came to know that his above named wife was enticed away by Jehanzeb s/o. of Zulfiquar, Mst. Suraiya w/o Zulfiquar alongwith her uncle Adnan (applicant/accused) with intention to commit Zina with her. 

 

3.         Process issued to complainant through SHO PS Ibrahim Hyderi has returned back unserved with the endorsement of ASI Muhammad Nawaz that the complainant has shifted to unknown place. He has also attached the statement of two persons of the locality.

 

4.         The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that the accused is neighbour of the complainant and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence; that prima-facie the prosecution has no evidence to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offence, which even does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.; that co-accused Mst. Suraiya has already been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Malir; hence on the rule of consistency present applicant/accused is also entitled for the concession of bail. 

 

5.         On the other hand, learned DPG has strongly opposed this application on the ground that the wife of applicant/accused was friend of the alleged abductee, which fact is proved from CDR that shows that on number of occasions she made calls to alleged abductee; however, she admits that as per record all the calls were prior to the alleged incident. 

 

6.         I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

 

7.         It appears that after dismissal of his bail before arrest application, the applicant surrendered before police on 18.12.2016. Police has submitted challan against the applicant; hence, he is no more required for further investigation. From tentative assessment of the evidence in the hands of prosecution, it appears that only available piece of evidence against the accused with the prosecution is the record of telephone calls, which were admittedly made by the wife of present accused to alleged abductee prior to incident. There is no eye witness of the incident; hence guilt of accused requires further probe into the matter. The alleged offence being punishable for seven years does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.; therefore, the applicant/accused is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand only) and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

 

JUDGE

Athar Zai