04/03/2022
Waqas Law Chamber
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,LARKANA
Criminal Bail Application No.S-36of 2021
Applicants: Jahanzeb @ Shahzeb @ Jani&
Aurangzaib
Through Mr. Riaz Ahmed Soomro, Advocate.
Complainant: Aijaz Ali Shar,
Through Mr. Ghulam Rasool Narejo,
Advocate
The State: Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G.
Date of hearing: 08-03-2021
Date of Decision: 08-03-2021
O R D E R
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through the captioned bail application, applicants Jahanzeb @ Shahzeb @ Jaani and Aurangzaib, seek pre-arrest bail in case, emanating from F.I.R. No.06/2021, registered at Police Station Naudero, for offence under Sections 365-B, 496-A, 452, 148,149 P.P.C. Earlier their bail plea was rejected by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 21.01.2021. Today the case is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
2. Facts of the case as per F.I.R lodged by complainant Aijaz Ali are that on 07.01.2021, he was available in his house along with family. At about 1-00 am they saw and identified that the accused, Shakeel, Shahzeb @ Jani, Aurangzaib and Abdul Jabbar and two unidentified persons with open faces, pointed their pistols upon complainant party, while accused Shakeel Shar entice his daughter Mst. Anila sitting on the cot and led her out of house by holding her arm and other accused also followed him. They saw in the street that one Suzuki was standing and thereafter the accused persons took daughter of the complainant in Suzuki. Thereafter consulting with nekmard, the complainant lodged the above said F.I.R.
3. Mr. Riaz Ahmed Soomro, advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the applicants along with 164 Cr.P.C statement of the alleged abductee and other documents. He submits that the applicantsare innocent and have falsely been involved in this case by the complainant with ulterior motives; that there is delay of 6 days in lodgment of F.I.R, which has not explained by the complainant; that all the prosecution witnesses are closely related to each other; that specific allegation of abduction is alleged against co-accused Shakeel Ahmed, who is in custody; that abductee has been recovered and she has been kept in DarulAman;that entire prosecution story is concocted one, the complainant got involved the applicant/accused without any direct evidence, hence the case of applicants/accused requires further enquiry. Learned counsel lastly prays that the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicants may be confirmed.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail pleas of applicant and by stating that applicants have committed heinous offence and that names of the applicantsare mentioned in the F.I.R with role of abduction of one girl. They therefore prayed for cancellation of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record and the police file with the assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General.
6. Admittedly, there is inordinate and unexplained delay of 6 days in lodgment of F.I.R, which has not been explained properly;that specific allegation of abduction is alleged against co-accused Shakeel Ahmed, who is in custody; that the alleged abductee Mst. Aneela in her 164 Cr.P.C statement recorded before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Ratodero on 13.02.2021 has not leveled the allegation of Zina against any of the accused; thereafter on the request of abductee, the Magistrate sent her to Dar ulAman. The abductee has not stated in her statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C that how she left the place where she was kept after the abduction and where she was kept, which opens rooms for consideration.
7. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail and the same is to be decided tentatively.From the tentative assessment of material available on record,it appears that the applicants have made out theirgood case for grant of pre-arrest bail.
8. Accordingly, instant bail application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 25.01.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.
J U D G E
