ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No.  S-  508 of 2012.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

29.01.2013.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing.

Mr. Shahbaz Ali M. Brohi, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Abdul Rasheed Soomro, State Counsel.

~~~~

Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J:        This is a bail application filed by the applicant in respect of offence, which is registered under Sections 365-B, 452 P.P.C, at P.S Bakhshapur, as Crime No. 12/2012.

2.       The case of prosecution in brief is that on 21.1.2012, complainant Rafique Ahmed Malik lodged report with PS Bakhshapur, stating therein that on 08.12.2012, when he alongwith other inmates of the house was sleeping in his house, as such at about 11.00 p.m. they woke up on noise of vehicle, and in the light of bulb they saw and identified accused Rasheed Ahmed, Muhammad Rafique, Akram, Sattar, Yaseen having T.T pistols in their hands accompanying two unknown accused with open faces, who entered complainant’s house. Out of them accused Rasheed Ahmed got up sister-in-law of complainant, namely, Mst. Aasma alias Jindun and asked her to accompany them for marrying him; to which the complainant party raised cries, in the meantime all the accused aimed their respective weapons over complainant party and on show of force of weapons they taken with them Mst. Aasma.   

3.       It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R and that the abductee has not yet been recovered and per learned counsel it becomes case of further enquiry. It is further contended by the learned Counsel that normally abductee was living at Karachi alongwith her husband and applicant has wrongly been involved in this offence on account of enmity. 

4.       On the other hand learned State Counsel supported the order and submitted that there is sufficient material against applicant connecting him with the commission of alleged offence, and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the prosecution witnesses are also against him. Learned counsel further submitted that specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R and the offence falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

5.       I have heard the learned counsels and perused the record. It appears that in terms of the F.I.R a direct role is ascribed to the applicant, as he is alleged to have entered house of complainant and forcibly taken away Mst. Aasma alias Jindun for the purpose as alleged in the F.I.R. It is matter of fact that the abductee has not yet been recovered and rest of the accused have been shown as absconders. I have also perused the application filed by the applicant before the trial Court under Section 497 Cr.P.C and in none of the ground the applicant has said that there is enmity between the applicant and abductee or her family, therefore, this question is ruled out that on account of any enmity or dispute applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R.  A married girl namely, Mst. Aasma alias Jindun is yet to be recovered and the other co-accused are still absconding, I, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances do not consider the applicant to be entitled for grant of bail, accordingly this bail application is dismissed.

Judge