ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Cr. B. A. No. 1968 of 2022
(Nadeem Khan vs. The State)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For hearing of
bail application
------------------------------
30.11.2022
Mr. Kher Muhammad, advocate for the applicant
Ms. Rubina
Qadir, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
Complainant Zain Hussain and victim Mst. Fiza are present in person
-------------------------------------------
Irshad Ali Shah J.—It is alleged that the applicant abducted Mst. Fiza, a young girl
aged about 15/16 years with intention to subject her to rape, for that the
present case was registered.
2. The applicant on
having been refused post-arrest bail by learned V-Additional Sessions Judge,
Malir, Karachi has sought for the same from this Court by making instant bail
application u/s 497 Cr.P.C.
3. It is contended by
learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been
involved in this case falsely by the police; the FIR of the incident was lodged
with delay of about 02 days. By contending so, he sought for release of the
applicant on bail on the point of further inquiry.
4. Complainant Zain Hussain
and P.W/victim Mst. Fiza have recorded no objection to grant of bail to the
applicant, however, learned DPG for the state has opposed to grant of bail to
the applicant by contending that earlier bail application of the applicant has
already been dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution.
5. In response to
above, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that earlier bail
application of the applicant was not disposed of on merit, which could have
prevented the applicant from repeating the instant bail application. Even
otherwise, the instant bail application has been filed on the fresh ground,
which is in shape of affidavit of the complainant, whereby he has declared the
applicant to be innocent, impliedly.
6. Heard arguments and
perused the record.
7. Admittedly, the FIR
of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 02 days; such delay having
not been explained plausibly could not overlooked. More-so, the complainant by
filing his affidavit now has recorded no objection to the grant of bail to the
applicant by stating therein that he lodged the FIR of the incident with police
on account of some misunderstanding. By stating so, he impliedly declared the
applicant to be innocent. In these circumstances, a case for grant of bail to
the applicant on point of further inquiry obviously is made out.
8. In case of Muhammad Najeeb vs. State (2009 SCMR 448), it has been held
by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;
“Complainant initially had nominated the
accused in the FIR but later-on through an affidavit he has expressed his
satisfaction with regard to innocence of the accused, the case of the accused
was of further enquiry”.
9. In view of above,
the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent
surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and P.R bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
10. The instant bail
application is disposed of accordingly.
J U D G E