1. ' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.--- This criminal bail application has been filed against rejection of the bail application by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi, Malir, dated 29-11-2006 in Criminal Bail Application in Session No,425 of 2006 relating to F.I.R. No,447 of 2006 under sections 364-A/506/34, P.P.C. Police Station Sohrab Goth.
2. Brief facts of to the F.I.R. Are that the complainant had registered an F.I.R. On 2-10-2006 in Police Station Sohrab Goth, wherein he had stated that his 11 years old daughter Sakina went to shop for purchasing at about 10 at morning on 1-10-2006 and did not return home till about 4-00 p.m. And thereafter, he inquired from his relatives, but he could not find her. She however, returned back sometime after Iftari at about 7-00 p.m. And disclosed to him that when after she had purchased things from the shop of Zulfiqar in the government hospital street, the present applicant along with three other persons and one unknown woman took her in a Taxi and kept her behind an unknown hill in a constructed room and they had beaten her and on her cry, some people gathered there and after seeing them they left her and made good their escape and she came back home. She further disclosed that these people belong to his Bradari and they had also quarrelled with him.
2. Thereafter, he registered the case against the above named persons on the ground that they kept his daughter in habeas corpus in a room. His daughter the victim accompanied him to the police station for lodging the report.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Hanif learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sardar-ud-Din Qureshi learned State Counsel.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complainant had consented to the grant of bail to the applicant. The complainant also attended the Court on 23-4-2006 and stated before the Court that he will have no objection if this Court grants bail to the applicant. The learned counsel continuing his arguments submitted that the complainant in the F.I.R. Had stated that the applicant/accused is a member of his Bradari and previously there was a quarrel between the applicant/accused and therefore it was established that the applicant had grudge against him and had registered a false F.I.R. Against him and other accused persons. He further submitted that there has been a one day delay in the filing of F.I.R, which leads to suspicion and so far, no independent witnesses have been produced, who could corporate the complainant's narration of facts. {{BLUR PAGES}} ' Replying to the preliminary objections raised by the learned State Counsel that the Investigating Officer had filed a challan implicating the applicant/accused under section 364-A, Cr.P.C. On the basis of statement of the victim under section 161,, Cr.P.C., in which she had stated that she heard conversation between'the accused person and other unknown persons, which suggested that the accused persons were trying to sell her to the unknown persons. He submitted that the victim had after the alleged incident narrated the incident to her father, the complainant and also gone to the police station for registration of F.I.R. With her father and it seems very strange that she had not informed her father about the alleged sale, when she had returned back after the incident and that she and her father had forgotten to rnentionrthis very ifierious- ident in He submitted that the narration on this zpoint in.Her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Is an afterthought and has been included in the statement only 'With the motive o implicating the accused person in a non-bailable offence. He also stated that even falter the rejection of bail application the accused person atmatfiberty,to file fresh bail application either on some frgr*,groundAominig to his knowledge or even without there have been any fresh.Grougd. Be also submitted that that an offence under section 364-A, Cr.P.C. Is triable by ordinary Court and not Anti-Terrorist Court.
5. In support of hid &intention h6'iefi6d'On following case-law:
(1) Vikio v. Abdullah and another 1980 PCr.LJ 602, (2) Saleem Akhtar v. The State PLD 1980 Lah. 127,
(3) Mst. Zuhra Bibi n-5d-.. And Hasina Bibi v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1909, (4) Khadim .,,,,:iflussain v.
6. The State 1999 YLR 1817,, (5) ahid Parvez v. Special Judge, Special Court No, 1 Anti Terrorism, Bahawalpur and another 1999 YLR 1716. b-trorl wfld I Mr. Sardaruddin Qureshi learned State Co el opposed the grant of bail, he stated that the challan of the case was filed under section 364-A, Cr.P.C. And therefore, the applicaltwai not entitled to bail. He further stated that no bail application4Wis- filed in the High Court against the rejection of first bail application on merits and therefore, no bail application can be filed in this Court against the rejection of second bail application, which was filed without revealin$ any fresh ground for grant of bail. He therefore, prayed that thse ball application may be dismissed. JI I have examined the case in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused '.Die, impugned order and judgment relisdr on by the learned counsel artd.The records, of ,the pase. On a perusal of the second order rejecting the bail application passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Karachi Malir, I find ';that the bail has been refused in this siase on merits of itteiOyte and not ,:because the applicant had failed to point out any fresh grorund:fopfthe allowability of the bail. Since the,.-001 hasibeen refused 9A4tierlit,filji4tha, of the view that the applicant was entitled to file this bail application VietfOiilhiitekiii."bilH ' I'M - f:::,)VQ,i, '- - bsd I. !Fa iiiilt2...: ' :. , ,4) ,15v,,,,151 1).6m,herilvivis the, r,. .. ,.I. Find that ,in1tially the r .1.', ,... ,was eria-ttqclei. g, et on.. g4,,,I.-4' -) .d. ' and in ilie".Elli 's46 tliClicititt e.o o P. o .)i, wz....1. : -. (1.1.(X,LZT.1:.)1 .. . : i,521153k,!ZIIV.i.: rnext.1 twentiqw.46 la; couirL,Iz bconsiccrect as ai, offence under section 3644:P . And it w o after recording the statertierait oT , . ,,,(r the1,414,0 Ill the. Yjctirn Jincter,,Kction lint _ r, , :',11-3.8t Investigatrig:E,ricer prePareleIe tthittan' implicating ifies'acipl-plicinf t and other aCc'ggelifeigiltialkr, section 364-A, P.P.C. In my view the factual discrepancy` betWeenlitite facts. narratildA tirtiEsifdR.,Audolacrt Sitatelif:41 the,-.Storetarentvof victim under section 161, Cr.P.C. Needs further inquiry. .ti2:1? ,`)1hVit ; ' Rtlagtt2 heatirtarlulvl From a perusal of the F.I.R. It is also apparent that the complainant and accuSed perkriffiricluding the applicant were not on ' good termoi.Bf sausetite F.1.,R._thte, complaipant had stated 1, ,i- ,0 et.,i,s,A;,..,,,,,,. ,.w,11",._, . that he had a -qt;artel---w e---rt musea -perwns-c- wit belong to his .Bradgtilip: ThisKtat42,inarratokiin ithe f:j.RtikAttprplogAtqoqtodicts the presumptiOni- iotthOst.A4dit49440.*AIP4s' j1114PlisiS#RAT, 41,h4r#CA I IAA* theticoulpiainarlbAoa not have:'.Any ill- mill agairi4tiitlietiawIlsect,sterrsqrks iineltrding ;the APPlio3)",,- ;1'1 lo r3,r,61, L, qi 1 imig:3 thi Ithellasis4iirticive discasSiii*Tgarn of ihtlii*Sidertikiliihiritt that the applicant fsoetiiitled'iotbail.;d1:131 jf.-tM 0:i igifiliiclq *Ill Y..Cf bisq i,t ,10ii trizt:ivoa5) \;.::::10I'. :i.: 1(..;', ' '''r'tisli& re; .
7. 5.4Z tlbi ti Foregpqmiretheireasoirs,rn,stupportor my short order p sea Court on 28-1- 100itw1i1C11 1' adMitted the applicatit to hail s4 Ida ?.t furnishing of -6 1 SAireir.Cif Rs,200,000 only'and P.R. bon91.iniVetlirce ' 0 .1 tilui".; ,I f.-WC, ' . ...` , . ' ' 41 eV:r5f111.11 amount to the sags action or tne trial cgurt. --,4 . Sacs ,-...yes3 2 it=i,E,Fii; twi ._ ' - Lil . Lill ti5rnstA The appikanti itilloweNTAryi.Clifffc*.Tc 44g41-.414.,tfizA940%*# the case and comply with the directionthiptillwiT4R149m4,24I4gyv4.4 the concession of bail may be cancelled. 'x all ,?,s; ifb;bits:.),etit . .r,f1554 13*iStAlailk.M1CVRAiS 0013fltierfl Ear tilFeK'113-'1ri 1118.LiAi405in, as flaw as tnsoiltris oris 5,i /110d wsrlr b5.1611041r#44144. i31111d 8A trJati vib54311E aria; d2res _wtroll 10 MGM is iii. Gniiris honor blaw, ,saiS filliff103 r S 011 ..;..Iii,i4.'t '.),fd i6i i-i8L,,I,..o...,,:F ., , ' 1:,..), :;`,,,A11,1,16 an .53.1lia . iduSi .raM wrt' 1)..'yirivrAP%gfriE4f Yfluigref (rif :Adslisys ai f.l3ribiv5 1-to itfliZbiffiSTICY,) aryis14.4iUliAMMADVAlaffir-jRCitiliOnbry:d liiti 01 biSCI `ia'll !l1t)zis-1 noirmltnoo !Ail Ili :::7::,o1 .t,:- - v:eri:ii.001-3,-ii ,rtid 01 bWarcliTh.6: pi 6111S to .1-1i3e.i 58>zJ insianl . - 5 `^ZI11103 b3CII&::)i ::.:iff.i 'tC::: THE STATE Respondent noinj3n63In. v .w.11 ,,,t.Iilipiti irjrilidt IttliiiiiinkritiiiiiiNtlqa.16/I'lnd Crintiriat-MISc.Fufto./4014)irtif 4905, '-dclif&I--A9irItlilliike;:i26-05?c11- ' ''.-).: Lit I T. 2:: , .202 ifiliOtii b t) A !,....1.,..-:,..1 {{BLUR PAGE}}