Criminal Bail Application No.1198 of 2012
Present
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar.
Date of hearing : 03.01.2013
Date of order : 03.01.2013
Applicant : Irfan Ahmed through
Mr.Shah Jahan Khan Jalbani,
Advocate.
Versus
Respondent : The State through
Ms. Rahat Ahsan, DPG and
Complainant through
Mr. Fasih-uz-Zaman,
Advocate.
O R D E R
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by order dated 03.11.2012 passed by learned Anti-Terrorism Court No.III, Karachi, in FIR No.270/2012 registered under section 385/386/419/34 PPC read with section 7 ATA, 1997, at Police Station Gizri, whereby the bail application of the applicant was dismissed, the applicant has filed instant bail application before this Court seeking his release on bail on furnishing surety.
2. Brief facts and the prosecution case as stated in the FIR is that the complainant works in BYCO Company as a Manager, whereas, his real brother Mubeen Ahmed is the proprietor of M/s. Inspire Education Centre, situated in DHA Phase-VII, Karachi. On 07.08.2012 at about 12:15 a.m., the brother of the complainant namely Mubeen Ahmed was present in his office and received a call on his mobile from Telephone No.0311-2535408, from a person, who introduced him as Aurangzeb Baloch and claimed to be a member of Baba Ladla Group, and demanded Rs.400,000/- as extortion money. Such demand was rejected by the brother of the complainant on which, Aurangzeb Baloch issued threats of dire consequences and used abusive language. It has been stated that same phone call was received on the next date with similar threats, whereas a SMS was also sent from the same telephone number. However, subsequently it was learnt that the SIM of the number from which such threatening call was made was obtained in the name of the brother of the complainant namely Mubeen Ahmed fraudulently by the office employees of the brother of the complainant namely Irfanullah son of Muhammad Usman and ex-employee Faisal son of Altaf Hussain, whereafter the FIR under section 385/386/419/34 PPC read with section 7 ATA, 1997 was lodged on 18.08.2012 against the abovenamed accused persons at P.S. Gizri.
3. Investigation was conducted by the I.O. and the accused was arrested on 19.08.2012. Challan has been submitted and the matter is proceeding before the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a qualified person, who is a teacher by profession, was also working as Instructor and Incharge, I.T. with the brother of complainant namely Mubeen Ahmed and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime to avoid payment of outstanding amount of the applicant. Per learned counsel, from perusal of the contents of the FIR, no case against the applicant under section 385/386/419/34 PPC read with section 7 ATA, 1997 is made out, as neither the applicant has called the brother of the complainant for extortion of money nor he has ever issued any threats to the brother of complainant in this regard. Per learned counsel, it is not conceivable as to how a SIM in the name of Mubeen Ahmed can be obtained by the applicant by mis-representation, whereas, no recovery either of the mobile phone or the SIM allegedly used in the instant crime been effected from the present applicant. It is contended by the learned counsel that the recovery of the mobile phone and the SIM has been effected from the co-accused, whereas, the applicant is being dragged in the instant crime at the behest of the complainant and Mubeen Ahmed with ulterior motives. Per learned counsel, there is delay of about 11 days in lodging of FIR, whereas, no reason whatsoever for such delay has been given. Per learned counsel, even Mubeen Ahmed, who allegedly received threatening call for extortion of money has not lodged the FIR nor it has been explained as to why, after having received such threatening call, the matter was not reported to the police and sim was not got blocked by Mubeen Ahmed or the complainant. Per learned counsel, matter requires further inquiry, whereas the case against the applicant does not fall within the prohibitory clause. It has been stated that the challan has been submitted and the alleged recovery has been effected from the co-accused, therefore, the applicant may be admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed to the grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the applicant is also required in another FIR bearing No.272/2012, for keeping fake NIC, whereas, in the instant matter also, in connivance with the co-accused persons the applicant/accused has attempted to extort money from the brother of the complainant and also issued threats to his brother. Learned DPG has also opposed to grant of bail to the applicant on the similar grounds.
6. We have heard both the learned counsel as well as learned DPG and perused the record. On tentative assessment of the record and keeping in view the contents of the FIR, it appears that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he has managed to obtain a SIM in the name of brother of the complainant namely Mubeen Ahmed, which has subsequently been used by the co-accused who allegedly issued threats and demanded extortion money from the brother of the complainant. We have also observed that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained, whereas, Mubeen Ahmed, who has allegedly received threatening calls from the accused person, has chosen not to lodge the FIR of the alleged incident. No recovery of the mobile phone or SIM which was allegedly used in the instant matter has been effected from the present applicant. Prosecution story under the circumstances, cannot be considered free from doubt, whereas the prosecution so far, has not been able to produce any substantial material, which may directly connect the present applicant from the alleged crime. The matter requires further inquiry. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail, which was granted subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court vide our short order passed in the open Court in the morning, and these are the reasons for such short order.
JUDGE
JUDGE