MUHAMMAD SALIM QUADRI Versus STATE

ORDER

1. The present applicant are involved in a case registered with Police Station New Karachi as Crime No. 622/93 under section 147/148/365/ 506-B/295-A/337-A/1/337/324, P.P.C. and section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The allegations against the present applicants is that they alongwith four other co-accused had scaled over the wall in the mosque where the complainant alongwith P.W. Idrees were sleeping and gave beating to the complainant and the P.W. and kidnapped the complainant whereafter the complainant was put to disgrace by shaving his head, moustache and beard. It is further alleged that the complainant was released at 5-45 a.m. and when the complainant reached the door of the mosque, he found the second set of the accused at the door which were torturing P.W. Idrees. The police after usual investigation have challaned the case before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central). Bail application was moved before the trial Court which was rejected in respect of the present two applicants and, therefore this bail application.

2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hamid Lakhani, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Fareed Ahmed Dayo, Advocate for A: G. for State. The main allegation against the present applicants is that applicant Muhammad Saleem was armed with Klashnikov but it is admitted by the learned State counsel. that the Klashnikov had not been recovered from the applicant Muhammad Saleem and also that no gun shot injury has been caused to any P.Ws. or any other person. This shows that as far as the question of possessing the Klashnikov this is a case of further enquiry. As regards the other allegations against the present applicants i.e. that they gave beating to the complainant and P.W. Idrees and abducted the complainant and put them to the disgrace by shaving his head, moustache and beard. It maybe observed that the other co-accused involved in the case against whom similar allegations have been made are already granted bail by the trial Court but no steps have been taken by the prosecution for cancellation of their bail. The case of the present two applicants thus being identical they would also be entitled to the grant of bail. I would, therefore, admit the applicants to bail who shall be released subject to their furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each and P.R. bond in the like amount to be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

3. N.H.Q./M-1946/K Bail allowed.