2022 PLP 1078 (MLD)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

By means of the captioned bail, applicant Zia son of Peroze Jamali seeks his release: on post-arrest bail in case emanating from FIR No.09/2019, registered at Police Station Imam Bux Jamali, for offences under sections 365-B, 452, 337-H(2), 148 and 149, P.P.C, after his bail plea has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shahdadkot, vide impugned Order dated 15-05-2019.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant party due to their previous hostility; that no incident as shown in the FIR has ever taken place; that the alleged abductee Mst.Pirh in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C, has not leveled allegation of 'Zina' against any of the accused and even she has not stated that she was abducted for committing 'Zina'. Learned counsel placing his reliance on the case of Muhammad Younas and another v. Muhammad Hanif Khan and another (2014 YLR 1161) and Farman Ali v. Fazal Rabi and another (2015 YLR 1777), prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant has mainly contended that the name of the applicant is mentioned in the FIR with specific role; and, that the PWs have also supported the version of the complainant. Learned counsel placed his reliance on the cases of Safdar v. The State and another (2011 YLR 3075), Khuda Bukhsh and 4 others v. The State (2014 YLR 814), Mst. Shameem Akhtar v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 135), and Shah Muhammad alias Baboo and another v. The State (2014 YLR 2417), prays for dismissal of the bail application. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material brought on record and the police file with the assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General.

5. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that the incident is shown to have taken place in the house of Ghulam Abbas Jamali in Village Vadyal Khan Jamali, while complainant Abdul Ghafoor Jamali, who is father of alleged abductee Mst. Pirh is resident of Village Kot Chutto, Taluka Qubo Saeed Khan, and whereas the alleged abductee Mst. Pirh is resident of Village Imam Bux Jamali, Taluka Qubo Saeed Khan and these villages are allegedly different villages. On a query the learned D.P.G after going through the police papers has stated that complainant Abdul Ghafoor and his daughter Mst. Pirh allegedly stayed as guest in the house of Ghulam Abbas Jamali, where the incident is shown to have taken place, but neither Ghulam Abbas was cited as witness nor was his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., recorded before the Investigating Officer; and, even no one among the inmates of the house of Ghulam Abbas, was cited as witness by the persecution; that the complainant in his FIR stated that his daughter Mst. Pirh, was abducted by accused for the purpose of committing 'Zina' but the alleged abductee in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C, has not leveled allegation of 'Zina' against any of the accused and even she has not stated that she was abducted for the purpose of committing 'Zina'; and, that the alleged abductee was not recovered from the applicant, but she had voluntarily appeared before the police on 13.11.2018 as is reflected from the mashirnama dated 13.11.2018, prepared at 0900 hours in presence of private mashirs Ramiz Ali Jamali and Raban Khan Jamali. Under these circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the case requires further enquiry into the guilt of the applicant and his case falls well within the ambit of Subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C., which entitles him to the grant of concession of bail. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant being distinguishable on the facts and circumstances, is not helpful for the complainant as none of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the complainant involved the facts and circumstances as are involved in the case one in hand. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum Rs.200,000/- (Two Hundred Thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction oldie learned trial court vide short order dated 17.06.2019, and these are the reasons for the same. 3(sic) The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, only for the purpose of deciding present bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the subject case. SA/Z-16/Sindh Bail granted.