1. SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.-- Applicants/accused Muhammad Orang Zeb, Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Javed all sons of Firyad Ali seek bail in Crime No.788/2013 registered against them at Police Station Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi for offences punishable under sections 386, 506, 34 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. Mr. Jamil Ahmed Javed, Advocate, files Vakalatnama for complainant, which is taken on record.
3. We have heard Mr. Munsif Jan, counsel for appellant as well as Mr. Khadim Hussain, D.P.G., assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, and carefully perused the record with their assistance.
4. Mr. Khadim Hussain learned DPG as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an offence of extortion of money, which disentitles the applicants/accused for grant of bail.
5. Brief facts leading to the prosecution case are that complainant owns plots in Sector 6/A and 6/B, Mehran Town, K.I.A., Karachi. Sometime ago, accused party demanded bhatta of Rs.500,000/- and issued threats of dire consequences, as such, he paid Rs.50,000/- to them as bhatta, they demanded further Rs.450,000/-, in failure whereof the complainant will be murdered. On 03.11.2013 at about 0200 hours complainant along with his friends, namely, Abdul Rehman and Zafar Iqbal visited Mehran Town in their care in order to visit his plots, when they reached Chapra hotel, upon hearing noise, complainant stopped his car and saw four persons there, they demanded Rs.450,000/- from him as bhatta. In the meantime, ASI Abdul Rehman reached there in his official mobile along with his subordinate staff, who tried to apprehend all the four accused but the present applicants/accused were apprehended whereas one of them succeeded to run away.
6. Upon personal search of accused, conducted in presence of complainant and his friends named above, ASI recovered mobile phone China from possession accused Asif, 11 rods of charas from accused Orangzeb alias Ranga and from accused Javed Rs.500/-. Thereafter, arrested accused and recovered articles were brought to the police station and F.I.R. was registered against the applicants/accused under the above mentioned sections.
7. After usual investigation challan was submitted against accused under the above referred section.
8. Bail Application was moved on behalf of applicants/accused before the Court of learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Karachi, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2014. Thereafter applicant has approached to this Court.
9. In our view, prima facie, a case for grant of bail to the applicants is made out for the reasons that at the time of occurrence applicants/accused were empty handed. It is not mentioned in F.I.R. that on which date and time complainant paid bhatta to the applicants/accused. There appears to be a dispute on a plot of land and some litigation is pending between the parties. It can hardly be believed that someone can visit his plots/property, which is admittedly not a developed area, in odd hours of the night; upon hearing noise complainant party sees accused persons and as and when applicants/accused demanded bhatta, suddenly police party arrived there and arrested them. No incriminating article has been recovered from their possession. Challan has been submitted with a delay of 80 days. Ingredients of section 324 PPC, are yet to be determined at trial.
10. P.Ws are police officials as well as friends of complainant. There is no question of tampering with the evidence. Case has already been challaned.
11. In above circumstances, apparently false implication of applicant can not be ruled out. We, therefore, hold that prima facie a case against the applicants/accused requires further enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, concession of bail is extended to the applicants/accused subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
12. Needless to mention here that observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial court would not be influenced at the time of deciding the case on merits.