The applicants Hayat and others are implicated in Crime No.47 of 1994 of Police Station Tando Adam District Sanghar which was recorded on 1-5-1994 under sections 365-A, 220, 448, 354, 109, 147, 148, 149 and 114, P.P.C. At the instance of complainant Haji Ghulam Qadir Junejo and pertains to an incident which occurred nearly three years ago, on 19-9-1991, on the lands of the complainant.
The gist of the complaint was that the complainant was present in his Otaq alongwith his three sons Nadir A.I, Tanveer A.I and Shakil Qadir and some friends, namely, Muhammad Saleh, Waryam and Mitha Khan when officers of the District Administration and of Police came there, cordoned off the village and commenced house to house search. Jam Zulfiqar A.I, son of former Chief Minister Jam Sadiq A.I and Jam Madad A.I son of Jam Anwar A.I were also with the raiding party and were armed with K.K. Rifles. Deputy Commissioner Imadad A.I Sehai, S.D.M. Muhammad Bachal Janori, S.P. Manzoor Mughul, S.D.P.O. Ghulam Rasool Sangi and some other Police Officers who were not known to the complainant, entered his Otaq and informed the complainant that he and his three sons were wanted by the Police in some case of which he did not give any particulars. Jam Zulfiqar A.I and Jam Madad A.I, who had also entered the Otaq, pointed out the three sons of the complainant, who were present there, and at their direction the Police Officers arrested the three sons of the complainant. According to the complainant the raiding party arrested, in all, 107 persons out of whom names of seven or eight persons are given in the F.I.R. One of the detenus, Mst.
Kariman, is stated to have died later on in the custody of the Police due to alleged maltreatment and torture. The detenus were kept in unlawful detention for eleven days, men in Sanghar Jail and women in Tando Adam Police Station. The complainant himself was not taken into custody and later he and his friends Muhammad Saleh and Mitha Khan and some others kept contacting Jam Zulfiqar A.I, Jam Madad A.I, S.P. Manzoor Mughal, D.C. Imdad A.I Sehar, S.D.M. Muhammad Bachal Janori for the release of the detenues but they demanded ransom of Rs. Five lakhs for the three sons of the complainant and Rs.5,000 per person for the rest of them and Jam Zulfiqar A.I also stated that the amount should be paid to S.D.M. Bachal Janori, S.D.P.O. Ghulam Rasool Sangi and S.P. Manzoor Mughal whereupon the complainant eventually paid Rs.10,35,000 at the Otaq of Ismail Shah in the presence of Gul Hasan Mari and others (to whom the amount was paid has not been mentioned in the F.I.R.). The same evening the detenus were released. (The date of the payment of money and the release of the detenus has also not been disclosed in the F.I.R.).
2. The present applicants are not named in the F.I.R. But it is stated in the supplementary challan that they are body guards of Jam Zulfiqar A.I and Jam Madad A.I. They were arrested on 26-5-1994 and were put to identification parade in which only the sons of the complainant are reported to have identified them. The case of the applicants is that they are being victimized on political grounds. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the State have been heard.
3. It is worth noting that all the officials named in the F.I.R., namely, S.P. Manzoor Mughal, D.C. Imdad A.I Raza Sehar, S.D.M. Muhammad Bachal E Janori, S.D.P.O. Ghulam Rasool Sangi are all still absconding and have not been arrested. So, are Jam Madad A.I and Jam Zulfiqar A.I. Inspector Hwnir, Khan and Mukhtiar kar Abdul Razak had earlier moved Bail Application No.658 of 1994 and they were granted bail on 15th September, 1994. While granting the said bail application we had noted that none of the offences with which the accused are charged is a scheduled offence under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act except section 365-A, P.P.C. And section 365-A, P.P.C. Did not appear to apply to the facts of the case which was more in the nature of unlawful detention at the hands of District Administration and the Police, misuse of the official powers by the officers of the District Administration and the Police and the receipt of illegal gratification for the release of the detenus and thus the case appeared to fall in the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial). The delay of nearly three years in the lodging of the F.I.R. Has also not been properly explained. The complainant tried to explain this by stating ,a due to the machination of the previous regime his F.I.R. Could not be recorded earlier. However, there was no explanation as to why the F.I.R. Was not got recorded immediately after October, 1993 when the previous regime ceased to hold power and thus the delay from October, 1993 till 28th April, 1994 (when the F.I.R. Was lodged) has not been satisfactorily explained. While disposing of the Bail Application No.658 of 1994, we had observed that the complainant was not a pauper and a destitute person and could properly peruse the case, at least after October, 1993. We had also observed in the said order that the F.I.R. Was silent as to whom was the alleged ransom money was paid. We have considered the allegations against the present applicants. Even if the averments made in the F.I.R. Are taken to be correct, it would follow that the applicants were very small fries and had hardly played any effective role in the commission of the crime. In the presence of the full contingent of the Police under the Superintendent of Police of the area, no effective role was left to be played by the applicants even though they might have been the bodyguards of Jam Madad A.I and Jam Zulfiqar A.I and the even if they (the applicants) had accompanied their masters to the Otaq of he complainant on the fateful day. Even though the applicants are not officials and functionaries of the State as Hamir Khan and Abdur Razak Pathan in Criminal Bail Application No.658 of 1994, still their case cannot be distinguished from the case of Hamir Khan and Abdur Razak Pathan. In fact, the names of the applicants did not appear in the F.I.R. And to this extent their case stands on a better footing than the case of Hamir Khan and Abdur Razak. We are of the considered view that the principle of consistency would apply to the case of the applicants and in view of the fact that bail was granted to Hamir Khan and Abdur Razak, the are also entitled to be released on bail. We would, therefore, grant bail to the applicants on furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and on their executing P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.