1994 P Cr (PLP)

1993 P Cr. L J 437 and Syed Kamranuddin v. The State 1994 P Cr. L J 625 ref. S. Mahmood Alam Rizvi for Applicant. M. Sarwar Khan, A.A.-G. for the State. This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Amir Ahmed Khan, who is involved in Crime No.327/91 under section 342/147/148/365/120-B of P.P.C. and 302 as amended. Said F.I.R. was registered on 20th September, 1991, in which complainant Anis Begum had reported about the disappearance of her son Rafique Shaikh. It was stated in the F.I.R. that because Rafiq had severed his connection with M.Q.M., she apprehended that he was kidnapped by activists of M.Q.M. and was in wrongful confinement with them. No name of any culprit was disclosed. Applicant was arrested on 26-1-1993 and is in custody since then, facing trial in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi Central in Sessions Case NO of 1993. First bail application No 476/93 filed before this Court on behalf of the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16-6-1993 and the second Bail Application No.563 of 1993 was dismissed as not pressed on 19-7-1993 as the learned counsel had then made a statement that two witnesses in the case were examined and in the circumstances the counsel was advised to move the trial Court afresh before approaching this Court. Bail application was, therefore, filed on behalf of the applicant before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed by order dated 22-7-1993. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the complainant Mst. Anis Begum and her son Muhammad Amir have been examined by the trial Court on 16-6-1993 and they have both specifically stated that they have no suspicion in the present applicant to be the murderer of deceased Rafiq Shaikh. It is also contended by the learned counsel that this was admittedly an un-witnessed incident and some of the top members of M.Q.M. were involved in this case who are not present before the Court and the remaining 14 witnesses are all formal witnesses. According to the learned counsel, it is -a case of no evidence and in the light of the above facts his case would require further enquiry and he would be entitled to bail. Learned counsel has, in support of these contentions, referred to 1993 P Cr. L J 437 and an order in Syed Kamranuddin v. The State Criminal Bail Application No.565 of 1993 = 1994 PCr.L J

625. Bail is not opposed by the learned AA.-G. who states that although in her further statement before police, complainant Mst. Anis Begum had implicated the present applicant but during her examination before the Court she does not support her such statement. Even P.W. Amir, who, in his 161, Cr.P.C. statement, had implicated applicant, has not supported the said statement but had deposed that applicant was not involved in the murder of his brother. The learned AA.-G. further states that having perused the entire police record, he finds that except the further statements of complainant Mst. Anis and Amir before police,. there is no other evidence against applicant, which again are not supported during their evidence before Court. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. In view of the statement made by the learned A.A: G. that there is no evidence against the applicant, I am of the considered view that his case requires further enquiry and I am inclined to grant him bail. Applicant Amir Ahmed Khan shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./A-1425/K Bail allowed.