' Applicant Sheikh Saadi who is wanted in Crime No,491 of 1987, Police Station New Karachi, under section 16-10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, approached the Court of Sessions (Central) Karachi, for pre-arrest bail, but without success. He has now repeated the bail application before this Court. The applicant was allowed interim pre-arrest bail in the sum of Rs,25,000 with P.R. In the like amount on 7-8-1989, and he continues to be on bail till today.
2. On 6-7-1987 the case was registered on the report of Muhammad Younus who had stated that in the month of February, 1987, while he was standing at the bus stop of Medina Colony alongwith his wife Mst. Aneesa for boarding of a bus for Liaquatabad, accused Fahim Kasai, Muhammad Mushtaque and Shaikh Saadi (applicant) offered them a lift. Muhammad Younus and his wife boarded the car. They were, however, taken to an isolated house, where Mst. Aneesa was subjected to Zina by all the accused persons at the point of pistol. The accused also took nude photographs with a view to blackmail Muhammad Younus. It is further alleged that after a few days of the incident the accused got a sum of Rs,10,000 from Muhammad Younus as consideration for the return of nude photographs of his wifc, but the same were not returned. The accused again demanded a sum of Rs,15,000 from Muhammad Younus and upon this he made an application to S.S.P. (Central) Karachi, whereupon the F.I.R. Was registered. During the course of investigation the police examined Merajuddin, Haji Muhammad Ismail, Tajuddin and Mst. Aneesa Begum. The investigation, however, revealed that no evidence warranting the arrest of accused was forthcoming. The police papers also show that complainant Muhammad Younus and his wife Mst.
Aneesa have left the house and their present whereabouts are not known. Thereafter, the investigation remained dormant till the present applicant filed a direct complaint No,382 of 1988 against some persons including a Police Officer, whereupon the investigation in this case was reopened and efforts were made to arrest the applicant in order to humiliate him.
3. I have heard Mr. Shahadat Awan, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Shaukat H. Zubedi, learned A.A.-G. For State. The latter has raised no objection to the grant of pre-arrest bail to applicant.
4. There is abnormal delay of about five months in taking recourse to law, which has not been accounted for. The investigation carried out immediately after the report revealed that no satisfactory evidence was forthcoming. The report of S.H.O. New Karachi Police Station dated 22-11- 1988 is available in police papers. The case as unfolded in F.I.R. Is shrouded in mystery. The applicant is again a heart patient and there is bulk of documentary evidence on record to show that his detention may be detrimental to his life.
5. The object of pre-arrest bail is to prevent innocent persons from being unnecessarily harassed. It is, however, an extraordinary remedy and should be resorted to in special or exceptional cases. The mere disclosure of the name of accused in F.I.R. Would not, however, justify the rejection of prayer for anticipatory bail without a consideration of the other ingredients required to be taken into view in this context.
6. Having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, I am in agreement with the view taken by learned A.A.-G. That it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly the interim bail granted to applicant on 7-8-1989 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The applicant is, however, required to associate himself with the investigation of this case.