IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

Criminal Bail Application No. D-16 of 2022

Criminal Bail Application No. D-29 of 2022

Before:

Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio

Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Applicant: Salar Khan son of Muhammad Arab Mahar through Mr. Mashooque Ali Mahar, advocate.

Complainant: Muhammad Rafique Arain through Mr. Zeeshan Ali Memon, advocate.

Respondent: The State through Mr. Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, A.P.G, Sindh.

Date of hearing: 26.07.2022

Date of decision: 28.07.2022

O R D E R

KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J- By this common order, we intend to dispose of the captioned bail application(s) as the same are outcome of the same incident. Through captioned applications, the applicant seeks his release on post-arrest bail in Crime No.26 of 2022 for the offence punishable u/s. 386, 420, 468, 471, 509 and 34 PPC r/w Section 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997 and Crime No.38 of 2022 for the offence punishable u/s. 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 registered with Police Station Jamshoro. The applicant had earlier approached the Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Hyderabad with the same plea which was declined.

2. Facts, in brief, of the prosecution case are that the applicant along with two unknown accomplices had started harassing and blackmailing the complainant’s sister Mst. Naheed who is a grade 20 Officer in Sindh University Girls Hostel. Complainant’s sister, in the FIR, disclosed that, about 8 to 9 months prior to the incident, the applicant along with the others had come to her office and demanded money and had also started approaching her at her residence and extorted cheque of Rs.1,400,000/- on the show of weapons in presence of her maid Komal Hingoro and employee Gul Muhammad Awan. Then, the applicant’s wife had also started extorting money from the victim/complainant’s sister. The complainant’s sister also disclosed that she had issued two (02) more cheques of Rs. 200,000/- and was continuously being harassed and threatened that if she refused to pay, her fabricated nikahnama would be made public. On 28.01.2022, the complainant’s sister left her house along with her maid Komal Hingoro in her car when she was approached by the applicant armed with a pistol and his companions in a Cultus Car (ART-894), and they demanded more money from her and after some back and forth, complainant’s sister paid them Rs. 30,000/- in cash, making the total amount extorted from her to be Rs. 1,630,000/-. Then, the applicant allegedly claimed to be the husband of the victim on the basis of a false nikahnama. The complainant approached his sister after hearing the news on social media regarding the present applicant being arrested from Jamshoro with a false nikahnama. The complainant and his sister then appeared at the Police Station together where the FIR was lodged. The applicant was arrested and then during interrogation on 16.02.2022, the applicant volunteered to produce the pistol which he had used to threaten Mst. Naheed and then led the police to Sindhlogy Musafirkhana (guest house) and from the bushes produced a 30 bore pistol with rubbed number along with 7 bullets at 1535 hours for which he was unable to produce any license and as such the pistol was sealed on the spot and mashirnama was prepared. Then, the applicant along with case property was brought back to the police station where instant FIR was lodged.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant had contracted marriage with the sister of the complainant and not accepting the same and compelling his sister, the complainant got false FIR lodged; that the cheques in question were issued by Mst. Naheed for the purchase of a car which is now in her possession; that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offence; that the prosecution story is false and fabricated; that the applicant is in fact a victim of annoyance and personal grudge of the complainant; that there is no independent evidence against the applicant; that the role played by the applicant according to the FIR is unbelievable and untrustworthy; that there is a delay in lodging of FIR; that the pistol has been foisted upon the applicant in collusion with the complainant; that bail may not be refused as pre-meditated punishment. As such, he has prayed for the grant of bail to the applicant while referring the case law(s) reported as “2019 MLD 959” (Muhammad Ramzan vs. The State), “2020 YLR 1065” (Muhammad Fareed vs. The State), “2021 PCr.LJ Note 31” (Ismail vs. The State), “2021 YLR Note 137” (Muhammad Aslam vs. The State), “2021 SCMR 387” (Muhammad Ejaz vs. The State), “2021 YLR 1680” (Faheem vs. The State), “2022 MLD 660” (Roidad Khan vs. The State) and “2022 CLC 963” (Ghulam Shabbir vs. Mst. Abbas Bibi).

4. Learned APG has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant while arguing that the victim/lady Mst. Naheed is unmarried and the nikahnama possessed by the applicant is fake; that the applicant was continuously blackmailing Mst. Naheed and extorting money from her. In support of his contentions, he has placed his reliance on the case law reported as “2017 SCMR 616” (Haji Shahid Hussain and others vs. The State).

5. Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant while contending that the applicant is specifically nominated in the FIR; that the victim/Mst. Naheed is a lady of good character and the applicant has made all possible attempts to ruin her reputation and extort money in return. In support of his contentions, he has referred to the case law(s) reported as “2017 MLD 560” (Roshan Ali Solangi vs. The State) and “2020 PCr.LJ 1652” (Imran Khan vs. The State and another).

6. We have carefully examined the respective contentions agitated on behalf of the applicant, the complainant and for the State in the light of material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record reflects that there is ample evidence available on the record against the applicant to connect him with the offence. He has been specifically nominated in the FIR for leading the extortion group along with his accomplices. The applicant has failed to establish and prove any malafide against the complainant and has failed to justify why the complainant would initiate false proceedings against him. The victim is a respectable citizen working in the Sindh University as a Grade 20 Administrative Officer and was continuously being blackmailed for almost nine (09) months. The victim herself denied having ever married the applicant and her application to the SSP Jamshoro dated 06.12.2021 was also brought on record and is available at annexure-G, which when put in juxtaposition with the FIR is the same on facts and also names the present applicant as culprit. A Family Suit is already pending before the Family Judge Kotri regarding the alleged nikahnama. As per the record of Women & Children Protection Cell of the SSP Office Jamshoro, another complaint was received against the present applicant from one Dr. Jabeen Bhutto who complained that she was being harassed by the applicant who was showing himself as an FIA Official. Letter No. WCPC/365/OF-2022 dated 15.02.2022 received by the Investigating Officer shows that the applicant had appeared before the Women and Children Protection Cell and apologized in person to the victim in the other case
(Dr. Jabeen Bhutto) and such written statement was recorded by him. This aspect shows that the applicant is a habitual and admitted blackmailer and there exist strong reasons to believe that, even in this case, the applicant being in league with his co-accused schemed to defame the complainant’s family and blackmail the victim Mst. Naheed in the process. The applicant, prima facie, actively contributed towards the commission of the offence by not only getting a nikahnama prepared, but also extorting an amount of Rs. 1,630,000/- from Mst. Naheed. The first cheque in question amounting to Rs. 1,400,000/- was encashed by the applicant as per the letter of HBL dated 21.02.2022. No sale receipt for any Car sold to Mst. Naheed by the applicant has been produced to controvert the allegation of extortion. Several pictures of messages are also available on the record (pg-21 and 23) which show that the applicant had sent threatening messages to his victims. The applicant has a criminal history and history of blackmailing as already observed, and has been involved in the continuous harassment of students and teaching staff at University of Sindh, an institute with esteemed reputation responsible for educating the future of this nation. As far as the delay in lodging of FIR is concerned, a perusal of the FIR itself shows that the same was even explained to the police while stating that the harassment and blackmailing was continuous for almost eight to nine months, as such, no real delay can be attributed to the prosecution and even then, the victim Mst. Naheed had made various complaints to different forums against the applicant. The applicant himself led the police to the pointed out place wherefrom he produced a 30 bore pistol along with seven (07) live bullets. The witness to the recovery (recovery mashirs) is a private individual who has, prima facie, supported the prosecution case and recovery. The applicant has alleged no malafide on the part of the private mashir. All details regarding the recovery of the pistol were disclosed in the FIR. The pistol was sent for FSL examination and a positive report was received. The punishment provided for S. 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 is upto ten (10) years and the punishment provided for S. 386 PPC is also upto ten (10) years which are both hit by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr. P.C.

8. It is a settled principle of law that each bail petitions is to be decided on its own merit and the law applicable thereto. Grant of bail in such like cases is not a rule of universal application. Reliance, in this respect, may be placed on the cases reported as “2002 SCMR 442” (Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others) and “2009 SCMR 174” (Shameel Ahmad v. The State). If bail is to be granted to every accused, even if he is charged with a non-bailable offence, without considering the merits of the case, merely on the plea that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise, the very concept and purpose of drawing a line between bailable and non-bailable offences and various kinds of punishments, as prescribed by the law, shall stand frustrated. The discretion vested in the Court is to be exercised in a judicial manner and in the light of the facts of each case. Where the prosecution collects sufficient material to constitute reasonable ground connecting the accused with the alleged offence, the Courts are always slow to accede to the request for bail. It has consistently been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that in non-bailable offences, grant of bail is not the right of an accused, rather a concession and this Court is not inclined to show such leniency in the present case.

9. For what has been discussed above, the applicant has miserably failed to make out a case for grant of post-arrest bail. Resultantly, instant bail application(s) merit no consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

10. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the mind of the learned trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.

JUDGE