HAMEED alias ABDUL HAMEED Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. This case relates to abduction of Mst. Sharifan, who was married to Jalal Khan, but later on declared `Kari' by her husband. According to F.I.R. lodged by Muhammad Haroon father of Mst. Sharifan, the latter after being declared `Kari' appeared before the Sessions Judge on 3‑4‑2002 and on her request she was sent to Darul Aman, Larkana, from where she applied for her, release after some time and accordingly on 3‑6‑2002 she was released under the orders of learned Sessions Judge and then she accompanied the complainant to Shikarpur where they stayed in the house of a relative namely Allah Dino. On 10‑6‑2002 the complainant, Mst. Sharifan and other family members including Muhammad Ilyas and Ali Sher were sleeping in the house when at about 2 a.m. they woke up on the barking of dogs and in the light of electric bulbs they saw that accused Bagan, Ahmed, Hameed, Basar, Jamal and Riaz entered into the house after breaking the door. The accused persons fired in the air, as such all the inmates of the house woke up, but they threatened every body to keep quiet. They forcibly took out Mst. Sharifan from the house and then went away in a Datsun Pickup. The complainant appeared at New Foujdari Police Station but police did not record the F.I.R. After some time, he, approached this Court and under the directions of this Court the F.I.R. was recorded on 17‑10‑2002 and the applicants were arrested on 21‑10‑2002.

2. I have heard Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.‑G. for the State.

3. Learned counsel for applicant at the outset emphasized on the point of delay in lodging of F.I.R. and submitted that the incident had taken place on 10th June, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 17‑10‑2002. The story is, therefore, highly doubtful. He further argued that the abductee has not been recovered from the possession of any of the applicants and there is no evidence except that of interested` witnesses, who are against the applicants. He relied on 1989 PCr.LJ 667 in support of his contentions.

4. Learned A.A.‑G. opposed the bail on the ground that there are eye‑witnesses of the occurrence and earlier out of fear of murder, the victim had appeared before the Sessions Judge and preferred to remain in Darul Aman. He submitted that it is premature to entertain the bail at this stage.

5. I have carefully considered all these contentions.

6. From the documents annexed with the bail application, it is clear that on 3‑4‑2002 Mst. Sharifan appeared before the Sessions Judge and complained that she has been declared `Kari' by her husband Jalal Khan and she apprehended risk of her life, therefore, she was sent to Darul Aman, Larkana. Subsequently, on her request she was ordered to be released on 3‑6‑2002. It is the case of prosecution that her father took her to the house of his relatives where the incident took place: There are eye witnesses of the occurrence in whose presence the lady has been abducted. Although for the time being there is no evidence of murder of the lady, but prima facie, the allegations tend to show that the offences under sections 364 and 458, P.P.C. besides other offences mentioned in the F.I.R. have been committed. It is premature to presume that the case calls for further inquiry. Accordingly, the bail plea is dismissed. However, it is expedient in the interest of justice to direct the trial Court to record the evidence of material witnesses within a period of three months of the receipt of this order, whereafter the applicants would be at liberty to repeat the application for bail in the trial Court.

7. N.H.Q./H‑118/K Bail refused.