IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.2278 of 2025
[
Abdul Moiz son of Abdul Ghaffar vs. The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
------------------------------------------
27.01.2026
Mr. Ashfaq
Rafiq Janjua, advocate a/w applicant Abdul Moiz
Mr. Sharafuddin
Kanhar, A.P.G.
M/s Behzad
Akbar Gabol & Muhammad Younis,
advocates for complainant
------------------------------------
SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI,
J.—Applicant/accused Abdul Moiz son of Abdul Ghaffar seeks
pre-arrest bail in FIR No.310/2025, registered
at P.S. Kharadar
for offence under section 365-B, PPC read with Section 3 of the Trafficking in
Persons Act, 2018, after rejection of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III/Special Court
(ARITA-2021), Karachi South vide order dated 23.08.2025.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that on 08.07.2025, complainant Muhammad Shabbir lodged aforesaid FIR against the applicant,
alleging therein that he has abducted his sister, namely, Ayesha, aged about 20
years, on 04.07.2025, with intention to commit zina.
During the course of investigation, alleged abductee voluntarily appeared at
P.S. on 16.07.2025 when her statement under section 161, Cr.PC
was recorded in which she denied the allegation of abduction. However, during
investigation her further statement as well as statement under section 164, Cr.PC was recorded wherein she has fully implicated the
applicant for commission of offence.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that this is a case of two version
as the applicant has contracted marriage with the alleged abductee on
28.06.2025. In support of his contention he has placed on record photostat copies of Affidavit of Freewill and Nikahnama (available
at Pages 41 to 47), which requires further inquiry in terms of Section
497(2), Cr.PC.
4. On the
other hand, learned A.P.G., assisted by learned counsel for complainant, has
opposed the bail to the applicant on the ground that applicant is nominated in
the FIR and the alleged abductee has fully implicated him in the commission of
offence in her 164, Cr.PC statement recorded by
learned Magistrate; that the alleged offence comes within the ambit of Section
497(1), Cr.PC, hence he is not entitled for grant of
extra-ordinary relief by way of pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.G. and learned counsel
for complainant and perused the material available on record.
6. From
tentative assessment of material available on record, it appears that there is
delay of four days in lodging of FIR, without any plausible explanation;
learned counsel for applicant has placed on record photostat
copies of Affidavit of Freewill and Nikahnama of
alleged abductee Mst. Ayesha with the applicant; that
during investigation alleged abductee has voluntarily appeared at P.S. and IO
has recorded 161, Cr.PC statement, wherein she has
categorically denied the allegation of her abduction and she further stated
that she has contracted marriage with the applicant by way of exercising her
right of freewill and did not support the version of the complainant; it is the
matter of record that during investigation she has deviated from her earlier
version and fully implicated the applicant for commission offence. From
tentative assessment of material available on record it appears that it is a case
of two version, which requires further inquiry in
terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. It is settled
proposition of law that merits of case cannot be considered at bail stage as
held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Muhammad Ramzan
versus Zafrullah (1986 SCMR 1380) and Muhammad Ijaz versus The State (2022 SCMR 1271). Sufficient grounds
are available on record which make the instant case of
further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC. In
view of such position, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to
applicant/accused vide order dated 03.09.2025 is hereby confirmed on same terms
and conditions.
7. Needless
to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature,
the same would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the
applicant/accused on merits.
8. Instant
criminal bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS