ORDER
SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal
Bail Application No.1672 of 2014
__________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE(S)
__________________________________________________________
For hearing
-------------
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2015
Date
of Announcement: 07.09.2015
M/s.
Mehmood Habibullah and
Muhammad Fahim Zia, advocates for the applicant
Mr.
Muhamamd Iqbal Awan, A.P.G.
a/w SIP Khalid Ali of P.S. Mehmoodabad.
---------------------------------------
Naimatullah Phulpoto J.- Applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar
son of Allah Dawaya has applied for post arrest bail
in Crime No.358 of 2013, registered under Sections
380, 506-B, 496-A, 342, 34 PPC at P.S. Mehmoodabad, District South Karachi.
2. Brief facts
of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 25.11.2013
complainant Nasir Mehmood lodged
F.I.R. alleging therein that on 22.11.2013 at 12:30
hours he had gone out of house for private duty. Present applicant/accused
along with others enticed away his wife Saira from
the house and took away valuable articles of the house. F.I.R.
was recorded vide Crime No.358/2013 under section
380, 506-B, 496-A, 342, 34 PPC at P.S. Mehmoodabad.
3. After usual
investigation, challan was submitted against the applicant/accused and others under
section 496-A, 376, 342, 109, 34 PPC.
4. Bail
application was moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar, the same was rejected by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South
vide order dated 15.02.2014. Thereafter,
the applicant/accused approached this Court.
5. Learned advocate
for applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar mainly contended
that there is delay of three days in lodging of F.I.R.
without explanation and co-accused have been granted bail by trial Court and
case of present applicant/accused is identical. Lastly, it is contended that
case against the present applicant/accused requires further inquiry.
6. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, learned A.P.G., argued that victim Mst. Saira in her 161 and 164 Cr.PC statements have stated that
she was subjected to rape by applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar
in his house and she was recovered by the police from his house. He has argued
that alleged offence carries capital punishment. He has seriously opposed the
bail application.
7. I have
carefully heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the relevant record.
8. Record
reflects that victim Mst. Saira
in her 161 and 164 Cr.PC statements has stated that accused Abdul Ghaffar committed rape with her. Chemical report is
positive. Mst. Saira was
recovered by the police from the house of applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar on 25.11.2013. Complainant/victim had no enmity
whatsoever with applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar to
falsely implicate him in this heinous offence. Delay in F.I.R.
is no ground for bail in the circumstances of this case. Case of co-accused is distinguishable from the
case of applicant/accused. Apparently, there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence which is
punishable for death or imprisonment of either description for a term which
shall not be less than ten years and maximum 25 years and shall also be liable
to fine. Prima facie, sufficient material/evidence has been collected against
the applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar to connect him in
the case. Therefore, no case for grant of bail to the applicant/accused is made
out. In view of the above, the bail application is dismissed. However, the
trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
9. Needless to mention
that observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and the trial
Court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the case on merits.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PA