1. ' These five Criminal Bail Applications bearing Nos. 595, 596, 607, 628 and 729 of 1989 arise out of the same First Information Report, lodged on 4-6-1.989 by one Saeedullah at Baghdadi Police Station, Karachi. I, therefore, propose to dispose of all these applications by this single order.
2. ' The facts of the case, as given in the First Information Report, are that complainant Saeedullah came to know that in their Muhallah some suspected persons have abducted some children from Punjab and brought them to Karachi. They kept them in unlawful confinement. It is alleged that those children arc to be sent to Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and other countries. On 4-6-1989 at about 1500 hours complainant along with Ghulam Farid, Muhammad Idrees Khan Niazi, Gul Jchan and Deedar Hussain went to Street No,2 on 2nd floor of building, near Sadaf School, Daryabad and saw three boys out of them 2 disclosed their names as Muhammad Hussain and Aijaz Ahmed, but third could not give his name. The boys, aged about 4/5 years, were kept by Mst. Sakina, Muhammad Qasim, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Usman, who were present along with children in a room. The complainant and others enquired from inmates about the children, but they could not give satisfactory answer. The complainant also recovered 14 passports, issued from Bahawalpur, out of which one was in the name of Mst. Sakina while remaining passports were in the name of minor children. The accused and the children were brought at the police station. The complainant stated that he suspected that these persons used to abduct the minors from interior of Punjab to Karachi and had arranged their preparation to send them to other countries as slaves.
3. The case was registered and finally challaned under section 364-A, 371, 342, 317 and 109, P.P.C.
4. ' I have heard Messrs IA. Hashmi, MA. Kazi, Salahuddin Haider and Munawar Malik for the applicants.
5. ' Mr. Salahuddin Haider argued that there is no evidence of kidnapping or abduction against his client Muhammad Luqman (Criminal Bail Application No, 628 of 1989) and no recovery has been made from him.
6. ' The contention of Mr. M.A. Kazi for the applicant Muhammad Qasim, is that applicant is not resident of the house from where minors were secured. It is argued by the learned counsel that parents of the minors were examined and they have stated that they allowed the minors voluntarily to go with other accused persons.
7. ' Mr. I.A. Hashmi, Advocate submitted that applicant Gaggan is father of one minor, namely, Obhayo, while applicant Muhammad Usman is relative of Gaggan. It is argued that minor Obhayo was allowed by his father to accompany Muhammad Usman, therefore, there is no evidence of kidnapping.
8. ' Mr. Munawar Malik, Advocate, has adopted the arguments of the other learned counsel and submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against applicants Hartz Abdullah, Amalgul, Soorjia.
9. It is submitted that parents themselves allowed the boys to accompany the other accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel that provisions of section 362-A do not attract to the present case.
10. ' Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned AA.-G. Has argued that this is a case which comes under the Immigration Act and provisions of P.P.C. Do not attract to the present case and there is no such evidence. He has no objection to the grant of bail.
11. ' The order was reserved. In the meanwhile on 10-9-1989 another application of applicant Govind (Criminal Bail Application 729 of 1989) was fixed for hearing and I heard Mr. Syed Ahmed Farooqi.
12. He was informed that application of Govind is already fixed for orders. He submitted that Govind has not filed any application prior to this. However, he was heard and he submitted that there is no evidence against Govind and his name does not appear in F.I.R.
13. ' Mr. K.M. Nadeem learned AA.-G. For the State has vehemently opposed the bail of Govind and submitted that one minor boy Makhno was secured from his possession in Room No, 205 of Poonom Hotel Saddar, Karachi.
14. ' There is evidence that three minor children were found from the house and at that time applicants, Mst. Sakina, Muhammad Usman, Muhammad Qasim, Muhammad Akbar were present.
15. The minors along with above four accused were brought to the police station. The case was registered. During the investigation two other boys, were secured. All five minors namely Mahmood Hussain, Fayyaz, Aijaz, Makhno and Obhayo were secured as they were being sent to Dubai, Makhno was secured from Gavin. During the investigation parents of the minors, namely Gaggan, Muhammad Usman, Ghulam Farid, Manzoor, Utamji swore affidavit before the Assistant Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan that they handed over the boys to accused for the purpose of employment. The case of the prosecution is that boys were being exported as slaves to Arab countries and their passports were got prepared by the gang from whose possession the minors were recovered. It has come in the newspapers from time to time that these boys were used in the races of the camels and some of them lost their lives and died in that process. I have seen some photographs of the boys and it is very sad that the small minor boys, who could not even speak, were allowed by the parents to go Arab countries for the purpose of lust of money. The photographs will show that these parents, who allowed these minors in the hands of the gang, clearly indicate that their lives were in danger. I am shocked how parents could dare to allow the minors to be exported for the lust of money at the risk and cost of their lives. In the affidavits, which of course cannot be considered as an evidence at this stage, the parents have stated that minors were being sent for the purpose of employment. At this stage there is a prima facie case under section 364-A, 371, P.P.C. Against the parents and the persons from whose possession these minors and passports were secured. I do not agree with the contention of the learned AA.-G. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor that this is a case which comes under the purview of Immigration Act. Mr. K.M. Nadeem, A.A.-G. Appearing in Govind's case has opposed the bail. Normally the entries of minors are to be made with passports of their parents. Under section 364-A, P.P.C. It is clearly mentioned that whoever kidnaps any person under the age of 10 in order that such person may be murdered or subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the lust of any person or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered or subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the lust of any person shall be punished with death. The parents cannot be given licence to deal with the minors as they may be considered fit and proper with the contravention of provisions of section 371, P.P.C.; where there is no exception to the parents and same is the punishment for the abatement. The punishment provided under section 371, P.P.C. Is imprisonment of life or could be extended to 10 years and liable to fine. The case of some 'applicants against whom there is no direct charge is distinguishable.
16. ' I, therefore, reject the bail applications of Mst. Sakina, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Qasim, Muhammad Usman son of Jam Khamisa Bux, Gaggan, Ghulam Farid, Manzoor, Uttamji and Govind.
17. The case of remaining accused is distinguishable. Applicant Muhammad Usman son of Shah Mir, Muhammad Luqman, Hafiz Abdullah, Amalgul, Soorjia are admitted to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Karachi South. Photostat copies of photographs of the boys, which are available in the police papers be kept on record of these bail applications.