ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr.B.A.No.D- 08 of 2014

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

07.05.2014.

Mr. Ayaz Hussain Tunio, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Shahid Shaikh, A.P.G. for the State a/w I.O / Inspector Mushtaque Ahmed Almani, Police Line, Matiari.

MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, J:- Through instant application, the applicant seeks bail after arrest in Crime No.104/2013 registered at Police Station Hala under section 364, 34 PPC and subsequently challaned under section 365-A PPC before the Anti-Terrorism Court, Hyderabad. The bail application preferred before the trial Court has been dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2014.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.G. on behalf of the State and our observations are as follows:-

(i) The alleged incident according to the case of the complainant occurred on 28.08.2013 at around 2200 hours whereas the FIR was registered on 30.08.2013 at 2030 hours against five unknown persons and for such delay no plausible explanation has been brought to the notice of this Court despite the fact that complainant who is the brother of abductee was present at the time of such incident of abduction.

(ii) The case has been challaned for abduction / kidnapping, however the abductee was not recovered by the police, rather the abductee came out of confinement on his own after a period of 15 days on 12.09.2013 and thereafter went to Karachi for his treatment. The abductee thereafter on 29.09.2013 recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and in such statement, the abductee narrated the incident and nominated the applicant / accused in the crime and for the first time the name of the applicant / accused was disclosed by the abductee and alleged that applicant / accused after three days of the abduction, came to the place where the abductee was kept in confinement. It is further alleged in the said statement by the abductee that he heard the applicant / accused in conversation with another co-accused namely Rabo that he is arranging for ransom from the family members of abductee. This is the only piece of evidence against the present applicant / accused and further nothing has been brought on record to show that the applicant / accused had in fact made any contact with the family members of the abductee and had demanded ransom for release of the abuductee. The statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the abductee was recorded on 10.10.2013.

(iii) It is also noticed that the version of complainant who is brother of the abductee and of the abductee in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement do not corroborate with each other and it is yet to be proved that which of the two versions is correct and believable.

(iv) It has been further noticed that according to newspaper clippings, the abductee was recovered by the police whereas according to the statement of the abductee under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, he managed to escape on his own. Further there is also a delay in reporting of such escapement by the abductee, as instead of reporting the matter directly to the police, it has been stated that abductee went to Karachi for some medical treatment and thereafter came back and recorded statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 29.09.2013.

3. In view of hereinabove, we were of the view that in the instant case there were sufficient grounds for further enquiry and the case of the applicant / accused was covered under section 497(2) Cr. P.C., consequently the applicant / accused had made out a case for admission to bail and by means of a short order, we had granted bail to the applicant / accused on furnishing surety of Rs.200,000/- (Two lac) with P.R. Bond in the like amount before the trial Court. These are the reasons in support of said short order.

4. The above bail order has been passed by us in a shorter format prescribed by the Honorable Supreme Court vide its order dated 20.03.2014, passed in Criminal Petition No.203-L of 2014, whereby we have not reproduced the entire contents of the FIR as well as the details of the arguments so raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.G.

JUDGE

Tufail