1. SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---F.I.R. No, 265 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station, Gambat on 8-11- 2010 for an offence allegedly committed on 3-11-2010. Complainant was one Muhammad Maroof.
2. He stated that he with his cousins Muhammad Hashim and Shoban Ali was standing in the street outside his house and his daughter baby Saira aged about two years was playing in the street when the present five applicants along with three unidentified persons came in the street.
3. Applicant No,3 is alleged to have kidnapped baby Saira and then all the accused persons went towards the northern side. Complainant and his two witnesses raised voices and followed them and saw that they took the baby in a blue colour Datson Pickup. After making, futile attempts at trying to trace the baby, F.I.R. was recorded.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are persons of scheduled caste and belong to a minority community and are permanent residents of Larkana District. She submitted that it is inconceivable that they would come from Larkana to Gambat to kidnap a baby from family with which no previous enmity is alleged to have existed. She further submitted that baby Saira was recovered on 14-11-2010 from Ranipur from custody of one Mst. Mevi. She referred to a newspaper clipping in Daily KAWISH where it is stated that the baby was recovered from the custody of unknown kidnappers. She further submitted that applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are ladies and are therefore entitled to concession of bail. Learned counsel submitted that in the F.I.R. it is stated that the baby was playing in the street whereas court below while declining concession of bail has held that baby has been snatched from the lap of the mother.
5. ' Learned DPG appearing for the State read out from the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of prosecution witnesses Muhammad Hashim and Shoban Ali and submitted that both in the F.I.R. as well as in 161, Cr.P.C. statements the present applicants are named and clearly implicated. He further submitted that Mst. Mevi is wife of applicant Lashman.
6. ' I have considered the submission made by learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
7. ' The reasons, which prevailed with the Court below for dismissing the bail application were as under:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record it appears that the names of all the accused are transpired in the F.I.R. with specific role of abduction of minor female baby, which is yet to be recovered by the Police although as per report of the 610 all the accused during investigation have admitted their guilt. The delay in registration of the F.I.R. has been well explained by the complainant, because after the abduction of his minor baby he remained in search of accused and his daughter when he could not succeed he lodged the F.I.R. as, such the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is well explained by the complainant. The offence alleged is heinous and shocking one as a minor female baby having about two years of age has been snatched from the lap of her mother which offence falls under section 364-A, P.P.C. and is punishable with death or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years and shall not be less than seven years and fine, there is no enmity alleged against the complainant for false implication of the applicants/accused."
8. ' A perusal of the above indicates that what persuaded the trial Court primarily is heinousness of the crime and secondly the Court came to the conclusion that as per report of the SIO the accused persons during the investigation had admitted their guilt. As for as reason recorded by trial Court is concerned there is no statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of any of the applicants admitting their guilt and if the applicants admitted their guilt before police it has not led to any further recovery such as the vehicle in which it is alleged that baby was kidnapped.
9. ' Main emphasis of learned DPG was that the baby has been recovered from custody of one Mst.
10. Mevi who is wife of Lashman. Mst. Mevi is not an applicant in this application and no material has been placed on record to contain that any statement of Mst. Mevi has been recorded in which she has implicated any of the present applicants. Or for that matter any other incriminating recovery has been made.
11. ' Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants, are persons of scheduled caste belonging to minority community and therefore they could not have committed such a heinous offence obviously cannot be accepted. Under the Constitution and the law all citizens whatever be their colour or creed are equal in the eyes of law and must be treated as equals.
12. Although it is sad to admit that our conduct as a nation has not been exemplary in respect of persons of other religious persuasions (I think it would be indeed sad to call anyone a minority, because, the term itself is pejorative, to say the least about it) but this in any case can not be a ground for assuming that the person has not committed a crime.
13. Be that as it may since after recovery from Mst. Mevi firstly no incriminating evidence has been obtained against the present applicants and no recovery has yet been made the case appears to be of further enquiry. Mere fact that Mst. Mevi is wife of one of the applicants is not a ground sufficient to conclude, at least prima facie, that the applicants are connected with an offence alleged against them.
14. ' I, therefore, exercising my discretionary jurisdiction allow this bail application. Let the applicants be admitted to bail for a sum of Rs,50,000 each with P.R. bond each and ,one surety each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
15. ' Bail application stands disposed of along with all listed applications.