2013 PLP 137 (MLD)

SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH J.

A prayer to recall the order dated 21-6-2012 of cancellation of interim bail granted to accused Sheeraz Ahmed Memon has been made with a further request that he may be released and sent up to the same position as he was prior to his abduction on the grounds that on 20-6-2012 both applicants were present in the Court and on the next day i.e. 21-6-2012 due to absence of the Applicant No. 1 interim pre-arrest bail granted to him on 20-2-2012 was recalled and notice to the Surety of the applicant was issued. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that on 21-6-2012, the applicant Sheeraz Ahmed was available along with Nayyar-ul-Ahsan in the premises of this Court for attending his hearing and remained present in Court room. During break time the applicant and his brother Babar Bashir went to Cafetaria, from where they were called by FIA officials and they were taken outside the Court premises and then applicant and his above named brother were forcibly taken into a vehicle and were brought to FIA office, Karachi. The applicant/ accused Sheeraz was kept at FIA office and in his absence this Court has recalled the interim order of his pre-arrest bail. This application is duly supported along with affidavit of one Babar Bashir claiming to be real brother of the accused Sheeraz Ahmed Memon has fully corroborated the contents of the application. Another application under sections 3, 4 Contempt of Court Act (M.A. No. 4242 of 2012) has also been filed wherein the legal plea of arrest of Sheeraz Ahmed by the FIA official during interim pre-arrest bail has been agitated and a prayer to convict FIA officials, namely Rizwan and Ali Murad under section 4 of Contempt of Court Act has been made. The Contempt application is also supported along with affidavit of brother of Applicant No. 01 Babar Bashir. On notice, both contemnors have filed their parawise comments on application under sections 3 and 4 of Contempt of Court Act, whereby they have categorically denied the contents of the application and its supporting affidavit. However, they have admitted that on 21-6-2012 at 16-25 hours, the applicant/accused was arrested from a place situated at much distance from this Court and after quite a big gap of closing hours of this Hon'ble Court. It is further stated that the applicant/ accused is habitual absentee and in this connection this Court has already issued his bailable warrants on 2-6-2012. In para-15 of their comments, the contemnors have stated that the applicant/accused was granted pre-arrest bail by this Court on 20-2-2012 and thereafter he remained on such pre-arrest bail till 21-6-2012, when this Court recalled the order of pre-arrest bail due to his absence. Lastly, a prayer to dismiss the contempt application has been made. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused and learned A.P.-G. representing the State and have also carefully perused the record. In reply of contempt application, both contemnors have admitted the assertion taken by brother of applicant Babar Bashir about date and place of arrest appears at para-3 of their comments to the contempt application, they have stated that on 21-6-2012 at 16-25 hours, the applicant/accused was arrested from a place situated at much distance from this Court and after closing hours of this Court. It is not attracting to a prudent mind that the applicant/accused Sheeraz Ahmed, resident of Hyderabad was found present for his arrest outside the gate of this court at 16-25 hours. If at all, he was found in front of Court premises then what prevented and refrained him to approach and attend this Court in the early hours of the day. This shows some fishy part on the side of the contemnors. Without proceeding further, against the contemnors under sections 3 and 4 of Contempt of Court Act, at the first instance, while considering the contents of the affidavits of brother of the applicant trustworthy, who stated that the absentee/accused was very much present in the Court premises and thereafter, he was tactfully apprehended and arrested by the PIA officials and subsequently due to his absence, the order of interim pre-arrest bail was recalled. This does not show a deliberate and intentional absence of the applicant/accused Sheeraz Ahmed on 21-6-2012. Believing the statement made in application (M.A. No. 4389 of 2012) and its supporting affidavit, the order dated 21-6-2012 of cancellation of interim bail granted to the accused Sheeraz Ahmed is recalled and he be treated on the same earlier position. He should be released forthwith, if found arrested in this case. Need arises to observe here tentatively that to restore the confidence of public in institutions and to eradicate excessive use of powers conferred upon the public functionaries, the proceedings under sections 3, 4 of Contempt of Court Act, however, shall be continued, separately. MWA/S-51/K Order accordingly.