SHAHID Versus State
ORDER
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--- Through captioned post-arrest bail application, applicant Shahid son of Ghulam Farid has impugned order dated 01.02.2016, whereby his earlier bail application was declined by the Court of learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central.
2. Relevant facts spelt out from instant FIR are that on 28.12.2013 at 1230 hours, complainant Ghulam Nazik lodged report that he is laborer and residing along with three sons and one daughter. On 18.07.2013, at 0400 hours, his sister in law Mst. Naseem came to his house, while complainant and his family members were sleeping due to administration of any intoxication, she made a phone call to 15 and apprised the situation. On regaining his senses, he found that his daughter Hajira aged about 13 years was not available at the house, and two tola gold and cash worth Rs.30,000/- were also missing. Subsequently, he came to know that one Shahid son of Ghulam Fareed at the time of Aftari administered intoxicated drink to entire family and he kidnaped his daughter Mst. Hajira with the help of his brother Muhammad Javed and Mst. Faraz Bibi with intention to commit Zina, hence instant FIR.
3. Learned Counsel for applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in instant FIR by the complainant due to ulterior motive; that applicant and alleged abductee Hajira contracted their love marriage and their Nikkah was performed on 02 04.2013 at Basti Lashkara. Muzaffar Garh and said marriage was also registered in the concerned office, that after the period of two years and one month, applicant was arrested by the police and he was produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate along with abductee and Investigating Officer had mentioned in remand report that abductee has been changing her statements; that applicant is behind the bars since the day of his arrest but no charge has been framed till date. Learned counsel pointed out the statement of victim recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. whereby she did not level allegations of her kidnapping against applicant and endorsed contracting their marriage at Muzaffar Garh.
4. While controverting the above submissions, learned APG vehemently contended that name of accused is mentioned in FIR and role has also been assigned; that victim in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. recorded before the Court of VIII Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central, has implicated applicant and his brother Muhammad Javed regarding her forcible abduction and contracting said Nikkah; that applicant is not entitled for concession of bail at this stage.
5. Heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record prudently, which emanates that complainant lodged FIR on 28.12.2013 at 1230 hours, regarding the incident allegedly occurred during the intervening night of 18/19.07.2013, but no plausible explanation has been furnished for such long delay in lodgment of FIR. Allegedly applicant served intoxicated drink to entire family except the abductee on the day of incident in aftari in complainant's house which reflects that parties were maintaining close relationship but complainant has not referred said fact. Likewise, abductee travelled with applicant from Karachi to Muzaffar Garh, Punjab, where they contracted their marriage on 24.09.2013 and their Nikkah was also registered in concerned office of Government of Punjab on 01.09.2015, and such registration certificate is available in file. Applicant was arrested after about 2 years and was produced before the concerned Magistrate and Investigating Officer clearly mentioned in remand report under section 167, Cr.P.C. dated 03.09.2015 that abductee has repeatedly been changing her statements. It is significant to mention that statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of abductee was recorded by the Investigating Officer whereby she has categorically stated that about two years ago she proceeded to Punjab along with Shahid, where they contracted their marriage and she was residing with him in the house. Abductee in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. has not supported allegations of abduction by applicant as alleged in FIR. Subsequently, she in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. changed her stance by alleging her forcible abduction by applicant and living with him in his house for more than 2 years. Consequently, her controverting statements are sufficient to make out a case for grant of on the ground of further inquiry. It is well settled that any slightest benefit of doubt at bail stage entitles the accused for extension of concession of bail on the ground of further inquiry. Applicant is behind the bars since 13.08.2015 i.e. for about 10 months but till date charge has not been framed and there is no probability of early commencement of the trial, thus applicant has been deprived from his right of fair trial and his further detention will not serve any useful purpose.
6. As the sequel of the facts and circumstances referred supra, applicant has succeeded to make out his case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicant is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
The observations made supra are tentative in nature and trial Court shall decide the subject case strictly on its merits.
WA/S-119/Sindh Bail granted.