GHULAM MURTAZA JAMALI vs THE STATE

ORDER NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.---By this common order both these Criminal Bail Applications, respectively moved by the applicants Ghulam Murtaza and Abdul Qadir, shall stand disposed of as the same have arisen out of one F.I.R./Crime No. 199 of 2010 registered at. Police Station Qasimabad, under sections 384, 109, 34, P.P.C. And section 6-K of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The earlier bail applications moved on behalf of the applicants, were dismissed by Anti-Terrorism Court, Hyderabad vide its orders dated 28-7-2010 and 5-10-2010.

2. As per the F.I.R. No.199 of 2010 lodged by complainant Muhammad Yaqoob on 22-6-2010 at 1-45 p.m, previously a robbery was committed on 6-2-2010 from the house of complainant who lodged such F.I.R. No.20 of 2010 under section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)

Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Bhitai Nangar and the police arrested one Mumtaz alias Abdul Sattar Umrani and applicant Abdul Qadir Umar who was confined in Central Prison, Hyderabad. The complainant alleged that on the day of incident i.e. 22-6-2010 the accused Abdul Qadir Umar who often used to trouble him, talked to him on his Mobile phone at 10:34 p.m. From Central Jail and asked the complainant to give 'bhatta' else he will be murdered. The accused further asked the complainant that he is sending Ghulam Murtaza Jamali (co-accused) who should be given 'bhatta' of Rs.50,000 at the gate of Technical College at 1-30 p.m. The complainant gave such intimation at about 1-10 p.m. To S.I.P Suhail Sarwar at Police Station Qasimabad and as per his advice the complainant reached at the gate of the College where a person came at 1-30 p.m.

Together with two other persons having pistols with them. On the demand of such person for payment of 'bhatta', the complainant paid him Rs.10,000 and in the meantime, the S.I.P Suhail Sarwar along with his staff arrived there at about 1-35 p.m. The two persons who were armed with pistols made their escape good while the culprit who had received Rs.10,000 from the complainant was apprehended and on inquiry, he disclosed his name as Ghulam Murtaza Jamali. On his personal search, the amount of Rs.10,000 of the complainant was recovered from his possession and then he was taken to Police Station Qasimabad where such F.I.R. Of the complainant was registered.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Sindh for the State and also perused the relevant record.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have falsely been implicated on account of their previous dispute and enmity and even otherwise the case of prosecution, from the very face of F.I.R., seems to, be very doubtful and the same needs further inquiry, therefore, the applicants are entitled for bail specially when the offences are also not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. They also contended that the applicants are no more required for further investigation as the challan has been submitted in the trial Court and the main accused namely Abdul Qadir is already granted bail in the main case of robbery and that both the mashirs of alleged recovery are highly interested being subordinates of the complainant, therefore, this very fact by itself, creates doubt in the alleged story set up by the complainant in his F.I.R.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned D.P.-G. Sindh for the State, vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicants contending that they are still issuing threats to the complainant and they are not entitled for the concession of bail at this initial stage of the case, therefore, their bail applications are liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the above submissions and find that the names of the mashirs namely Abdullah and Nazir Ahmed are not appearing in the very F.I.R. In which the complainant is shown to have had proceeded from Police Station Qasimabad to the place of alleged incident as per the directions of the police. There is also no mashirnama prepared at the spot in respect of the recovery of the cash of Rs.10,000 allegedly received by the applicant Ghulam Murtaza and recovered from his possession. But, the mashirnama in question shows that the applicant/accused Ghlam Murtaza was first taken from the spot towards the Police Station where such mashirnama was then prepared. The complainant, who is present in Court, also admits on a query that both mashirs are his subordinates in HESCO/WAPDA, Hyderabad. The alleged demand of bhattai made by the applicant Abdul Qadir from the complainant on Mobile phone, also needs further inquiry, in the circumstances of this case. The case in the facts and circumstances as stated above require further inquiry and therefore, we found the applicants entitled to the concession of bail and admitted them to bail vide a short order dated 11-1-2011..