' Application for bail of the applicants Rashid Mehmood and Faisal Mehmood is moved in case F.I.R.
No, 21 of 1996 Police Station City Courts, Karachi registered on 10-5-1996 for offences under sections 367, 342, 504, 506, 109, 324, 337/34, P.P.C. Pending trial before the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South.
2. Prosecution case briefly stated is that the complainant is a practicing senior Advocate of High Court of Sindh. Previously he used to reside in Nazimabad. Karachi but since a year he shifted alongwith his family to a flat in Shan Plaza, North Karachi. His son Muhammad Adil aged 23 years usually goes alongwith the complainant to City Courts to render assistance to the complainant. On 6-5-1996 while they were at City Courts from there the complainant went to attend to the High Court. The applicants and their brother (absconding accused Jahangir) came in the meanwhile, in a vehicle and abducted the complainant's son Muhammad Adil. On his return, the complainant finding his son missing contacted various posts and places including Chief Minister's Complaint Cell on Phone No,134 and Rangers Posts. He however, lodged a report on the same day which was recorded as Non-cog Report at City Court Police Station. The complainant however, on 7-5-1996 at 2-25 a.m received a telephone message from his residence at the residence of Mr. Khudai, Advocate in PECH Society that Muhammad Adil had been dropped secretly and silently at his home. Accordingly the complainant and his companion Advocates reached the complainant's residence and found Muhammad Adil in serious condition. Muhammad Adil was removed to Civil Hospital. Information was also given to police station. The Medico-Legal Officer also informed the S.-I. Police that the injured was not able to give statement. The injure dab ducted was, however, removed from Civil Hospital to Jinnah Hospital Post Graduate Medical Centre and then to Liaquat National Hospital for proper medical treatment. The injured, however, regained his consciousness on 10-5-1996 at 3-00 p.m. When his statement was recorded by police, wherein he disclosed that he was abducted by the applicants and their brother accused Jahangir in a Van, was later made senseless and maltreated and ultimately left at his home surreptitiously.
3. The motive of offence is shown to be enmity between the complainant party and Muhammad Younus (father of the applicants) contractor/owner of Shan Builders over poor condition of the flat allotted to them and subsequent complaints of the complainant party to Karachi Building Control Authority and other Government functionaries.
4. The applicants came to be taken into custody for the first time on 11-10-1999, when they approached Sessions Court for their pre-arrest bail after getting protective bail from this Court. Till then, the trial Courts order shows that they were playing hide and seek with the Courts. One of the accused namely Jahangir has absconded after dismissal of his Pre-arrest Bail Application No,139 of 1998 by the trial Court on 15-8.1998 after remaining on interim bail for more than five months.
5. It was contended by Mr. Shaukat H. Zubedi, learned counsel for the applicants that the incident took place on 6-5-1996 but the report was lodged on 10-5-1996. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained. He further argued that the City Court premises during the course of the day or at the time of alleged incident is visited by hundred of people and not a single independent person is shown as a prosecution witness while the P. Ws. Shown in the challan or interested in the complainant. It was further contended that the applicants are businessmen of repute. The complainant had to pay Rs,160,000 to the father of the applicants as balance amount in respect of the purchase of flat and the complainant in order to usurp this money has launched false prosecution against the applicants.
6. It was further argued by the learned counsel that applicant Faisal Mehmood is a minor boy aged about 14 years and 2 months. According to Mr. Zubedi, the case of prosecution needed further enquiry which should result in the release of the applicants on bail. He has placed reliance upon case-law reported as PLD 1972 SC 272 and 1976 SCMR 168.
7. Mr. M. Ilyas Khan learned counsel for the complainant contended that the report of the incident of missing of the complainant's son was promptly lodged at Police Station City Court on the same day which was taken down in the Station Diary as Non-cog Report. He argued that the applicants and their brother namely accused Jahangir who is still absconding had a motive to commit the offence, which has been admitted by them by stating that the complainant owed Rs,160,000 to the father of the applicants/accused who belongs to Shan Builders of flats. Learned counsel referred to the case reported as 1982 SCMR 1113(2), 1982 SCM R 1141 and 1998 SD 32.
8. Mr. Habib Ahmed learned A.A.-G. While supporting the prosecution and adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicants, on the grounds that the applicants are ferocious type of people, they came to City Court Compound in a vehicle and took away P.W. Muhammad Ali in the morning time during Court hours, knowing that the P.W. Muhammad Adil would be present there. He further argued that the applicants-accused were absconding since beginning and accused Jahangir after refusal of bail before arrest to him is still absconding. He argued that the applicants are most likely to abscond if released on bail. He urged that the conduct of the applicants-accused towards the Courts and the fact of their ascension disentitles them to their prayer.
9. On my asking Mr. M. Ilyas Khan about the ground of age raised on behalf of the applicant Faisal Mehmood, learned counsel replied that the ground of age was not raised before the learned trial Court and the same may not be allowed to be pressed here for the first time. Learned A.A.-G also raised the same objection to which Mr. Shaukat Zubedi frankly stated that due to such reason he would not press for bail of the applicant, Faisal Mehmood and he would first move the learned trial Court in that behalf.
10. It has not been denied that N/C Report was not lodged on the date of incident. Not only report of the incident was made at City Court Police Station but it was reported before Rangers Posts, at Complaint Cell Phone No,134 and at other places. Therefore, the ground of delay in F.I.R. Is hardly tenable. In the given circumstances of the case, to speak of lack of independent prosecution witnesses is also understandable, the people almost appear to be busy in their own affairs. They hardly appear to be concerned about other people's business in busy peak hours of the day. The statement of the complainant and his son P.W. Muhammad Adil/abductee which is supported by medical evidence, apart from the applicants' conduct before Courts, would be sufficient material to refuse bail to the applicants. The offences allegedly committed by the applicants prescribe punishment of imprisonment exceeding ten years and fall within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P.C.
11. The law referred in support of the applicants' case is distinguishable and does not apply in the present case.
12. Accordingly, bail plea of applicant Faisal Mehmood is dismissed as not pressed while bail plea of applicant Rashid Mehmood is dismissed on merits of the case.
13. Bail application of the applicants was dismissed by a short order dated 17-5-2000 and these are the reasons for the same.
Bail declined.