As both the bail applications arise out of the same F.I.R., those are being disposed of by this single order.
2. The applicants are involved in F.I.R. No, 382/2005 registered at P.S. Shares Faisal under Sections 389, 120-B, 418/34 PPC.
3. The allegations against the applicants, as disclosed in the abovesaid F.I.R. lodged by complainant Tanveer Ahmad, are that all the applicants and co-accused persons conspired together in order to extort huge amount from the complainant and for that purpose they managed to hide applicant Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Bhutto who was an employee of the complainant and staged drama of his kidnapping, inasmuch as applicant Dr. Ejaz Ahmad who is brother in law of applicant Abdul Ghafoor Bhutoo got registered F.I.R. No, 393/2004 alleging therein latter's fictitious kidnapping. It is alleged that through video cassettes and letters a demand of 25 crores rupees was made from the complainant for the release of applicant Abdul Ghafoor Bhutto and when the culprits failed in achieving their goal, they tried to involve the complainant in the offence of kidnapping. It is further alleged that subsequently the said case proved to be false, having been concocted by the applicants and other co-accused vide judgment passed in Special Case No, 02/2005. The complainant, therefore, was promoted to lodge the abovesaid F.I.R. against the applicants and other co-accused thereby accusing them of offences alleged.
The applicant Mushtaq Ali Jatoi was initially granted interim pre-arrest bail but the same was not confirmed and his post-arrest bail was also rejected. It is pleaded that other applicants were granted bail but thereafter the complainant managed to get inserted Sections 388 and 506-B PPC as a result of which, the order of granting bail was recalled and consequently except female accused namely, Dr. Zeba Bhutto other accused were arrested, hence this bail application.
The bail is pressed on the grounds that the applicants have been falsely involved for ulterior motives, that offences under Sections 389/120-B and 418 PPC are bailable, subsequent addition of Sections 388 and 506-B P.P.C. was tainted with malice, as those sections were, at all, not attracted in view of the facts, narrated in the F.I.R., that previously on the same facts and circumstances F.I.R.
No, 304/2005 was already lodged against the applicants, as such registration of second F.I.R. on the same facts was not warranted under the law, that applicant Mushtaq Ali Jatoi was himself a victim in the case of kidnapping and was acquitted by Special Judge, ATA Court, thus the case of the applicants calls for further enquiry.
5. Learned A.A.G. chose not to argue that case and left the same to be opposed by learned counsel for the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the application for bail, contending that the merits of the case could not be gone into, and that the deeper appreciation of evidence was not warranted at bail stage. It was further contended that the judgment recorded in Spl. Case No, 2 of 2005 was adequate enough to prima facie implicate the accused in the commission of non- bailable offence.
6. The arguments advanced at the bar have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.
7. From the perusal of material placed on record, it reveals that initially F.I.R. was registered for offences falling under Sections 389/120B and 418 PPC which are bailable but subsequently Sections 388 PPC A i,e, for extortion of money and Section 506-B PPC for extending threats of dire consequences etc. were inserted. Certainly, appreciating the evidence or for that matter touching the merits of the case, would not be appropriate, at this stage, yet bare perusal of the contents of F.I.R. would reveal that ingredients of the offence of "extortion" as well as issuing B threats of causing death were hardly available. The prosecution shall have to strive hard to bring the case within the ambit of Section 388 P.P.C., as the judgment delivered in the special case as referred by the prosecution does not suggest extortion of whatsoever nature, notwithstanding the fact that the complainant acted as a prosecution witness in the said special case. Appellant Mushtaq Ali suffered the agony of trial as accused in Spl. Case No, 2/2005 and was finally acquitted. Now he will have a second round of grilling.
Prior to the registration of the present FIR, more or less on the same facts the report Bearing Crime No, 309/05 P.S. Shah Faisal Town was registered by State in pursuance of the orders passed by A.T.C. Through A.T.C. has not passed any order against the Complainant Tanveer, yet the challenged such orders before this Court in Cr. Misc. Application No, 96/2005 under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. which was dismissed vide order dated 2.8.2005.
In any case, the case of the applicants calls for further enquiry and at the moment they are entitled to be released on bail.
8. Accordingly the applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount by each of them to the satisfaction, of the trial Court.
Above are the reasons for short order passed on 22.2.2006.
The perusal of bail orders passed by Mrs. Akhtar A. Chaudhry, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East revealed that those were quite lengthy, but were badly lacking in pith and substance.
She is required to take care and improve the legal knowledge. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.