MUHAMMAD DILPAZEER Versus STATE

ORDER

1. On facts the armed Additional Advocate-General states that the alleged abducted girl had not been seen by any person in the company of the accused outside Karachi. He further states that one person while standing outside the Employment Exchange Office at Karachi, had seen the alleged abducted girl with the applicant. The police papers further indicate that the applicant was friendly with a family member of the alleged abducted person so much so that the applicant used to write letters to the relatives of the abducted woman at her dictation. It is also stated that the applicant had once conveyed a message of the abducted girl to her brother in Punjab in regard to maltreatment by her husband.

2. Such circumstances are not incompatible with the assumption that the alleged abducted girl has gone back to her relatives. In any case, she is not traceable nor there is any immediate prospect of her being traced out. There is nothing to indicate that there was any sexual relation between the abducting person and the abductee. On merits, this appears to be a case for grant of bail.

3. The learned Additional Advocate-General has however, invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Murad Khan P L D 1983 S C 82. The Supreme Court has stated that pre-arrest bail could be granted if it appears that arrest was for ulterior motive to humiliate, and harass the accused, or to cause irreparable injury to p reputation or liberty. The very fact that the accused is likely to be arrested in a case of such nature would mean harassment, and by his arrest the accused would not only lose his liberty but even his service. In my view the conditions prescribed in the Supreme Court judgment are amply satisfied in the present case.

4. Interim bail granted to the accused on 18th August, 1983, is confirmed.

5. M.Y.H. Interim bail confirmed.