Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 370 of 1981, decided on 31st March 1981.

‑‑ S. 497‑Bail pressed on grounds ; (i) petitioners falsely .implica ted and nothing incriminating recovered from their possession; (ii) F. I. R. lodged with delay of 35 hours and no reasonable explana tion forthcoming, (iii) petitioner's names not mentioned in F. I. R. and no eye‑witness cited for alleged incident‑Delay in lodging F. I. R., however, satisfactorily explained and Car Number in which petitioner and his children abducted mentioned in F. I. R. and petitioners arrested while driving same car near house of petitioner ---Bail declined, in face of prima facie evidence, in circumstances.

Sayedain for Petitioners.

Ibrahim Memon for the State.

Date of hearing : 31st May, 1981.

Applicants have applied for bail under section 498, Cr. P. C. to this Court, as their bail application under section 497, Cr. P. C. was rejected by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, vide his order dated 25th April, 1981 and by Vth Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 18th May, 1981.

2. The prosecution case against the applicants is that one Syed Yaseen complainant alongwith his daughter and son were abducted from near Nishter Chowk on 8th April, 1981 at about 9 p. m. The complainant was deprived of his passport and 1300 dollars and was thereafter made to sign an acknowledgment of liability and a promise to pay Rs. 60,000 in city Court on the threat that his son's life would be in danger, as his son was detained by the applicants in their house. According to the complai nant the present applicants and one Mian Rasool abducted the complainant and his two children in a car hearing No. 081‑940 from near Nishter Chowk, Karachi and thereafter took them to a house where his passport and 1,300 dollars which were on his person were removed and subsequently his daughter was taken out from the said house and left in the front of com plainants house and on the following day at 2.30 p.m. the applicants brought the complainant to City Court, leaving behind his son detained in the said house and under threats obtained from him a promise to pay Rs. 60,000 on stamp paper. This payment was to be made on 10th April, 1981 and after the complainant had executed the paper in question, the complainant and his son were released from the custody. The complainant on the next date 11th April, 1981 lodged F. I. R., in which he bad given the car No. 081‑940 in which they were abducted and narrated the above facts in the said F. I. R. According to prosecution, on 12th April, 1981, the applicants alongwith other accused Mian Rasool were arrested by the Police, while they were going towards the house of the complainant, in very same car No. 081‑940 presumably to collect Rs. 60,000 on the basis of the writing executed by the complainant. According to prosecution the com plainant's passport was recovered from the possession of Mian Rasool, the other co‑accused and the Police after investigation challaned the case in the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, where the bail applications moved by ‑the applicants were rejected.

3. The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted, that the applicants are innocent persons and had been falsely implicated in this case and nothing incriminating were recovered from the possession of the applicants. The learned counsel further submitted that there was delay of about 35 hours in lodging the F. I. R. and no reasonable explanation was forthcoming for such delay. Furthermore according to the learned Advo cate for the applicant the names of the applicants have not been mentioned in F. I. R. and further there are no eye‑witnesses cited for the alleged incident and in view of this it was a fit case where the applicants should be granted bail.

4. Mr. Memon, Additional Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the bail application on the ground, that applicants alongwith Mian Rasool the other co‑accused were caught while driving Car No. 081‑940 on 12th April, 1981, while going towards the house of the complainant and the complainant in his F. I. R. had mentioned this car. In view of the circumstances, the Additional Advocate‑General submitted that this was not a fit case for granting bail at this stage to the applicants, as prima facie the contents of F. I. R. have been established by recovery of complainant's passport and from the fact that applicants alongwith Mian Rasool were arrested, while driving car No. 081‑940, near the house of the complainant.

5. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties and in my opinion, the delay in filing the F. I. R. has been explained by the complainant and furthermore the com plaint in his F. I. R. had mentioned the car number in which he and his children were abducted and the applicant and the other co‑accused Mian Rasool were arrested while driving the very said car near the house of the B complainant and as such in the face of this prima facie evidence, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicants at this stage before some evidence is recorded. Therefore, I dismiss the above bail application. However, applicants will be at liberty to move fresh bail application, either before the trial Court or before this Court, after recording of some evidence, if they are so advised.

Bail application rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.