1. ' I propose to dispose of Criminal Bail Application No,382 of 2003 and Criminal Bail Application No,407 of 2003 by this single order as both arise out of the same F.I.R.
2. ' The facts leading to present applications for bail are that applicants/accused are facing trial before IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo under sections 466, 464, 452, 467, 354, 471, 469, 468, 420, 474, 174, 506(2) and 406, P.P.C. The case arose out of F.I.R. No,84 of 2003, Police Station Mirpur Mathelo.
3. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by one Gul Hassan by Caste Leghari on 30-5-2003 are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:-- "Complaint is that about one month back, my daughter Mst. Nazia Leghari was going by foot from her house to meet with her aunty at Gul Colony, on the way Ali Akbar Leghari teased my daughter.
4. My daughter complained to me. Such fact I narrated to Nekmard of Ali Akbar Leghari namely Muhammad Younis Leghari, on which accused Ali Akbar annoyed and issued threats to my children on telephone that he will kidnap Mst. Nazia. About one week back accused Ali Akbar Leghari, Abdul Razak Leghari, Ghulam Qadir Tanwari and two unknown persons came to my house in my absence and on knock of the door my father Arz Muhammad Leghari went out to whom they gave a photostat copy of Nikahnama expressing that he possess Nikahnama, therefore, Mst. Nazia be handed over to him or Rs,2,00,000 to be paid to Ali Akbar as per terms mentioned therein.
5. Thereafter they went away. Ali Nawaz Leghari and Muhammad Ismail Leghari witnessed. My father narrated me above facts and showed me the Nikahnama. The Nikahnama was written by Molvi Muhammad Azeem son of Muhammad Alam Unnar, from whom we verified, who stated under document that accused Ali Akbar Leghari had taken him to his house to perform the Nikah and on gunpoint they got the Nikahnama written from him. I complained to elders of accused Ali Akber, whereupon accused Ali Akbar annoyed and started issuing threats. On 29-5-2003 during night, I was present in the house when there was a knock on the door I went out and saw accused Ali Akbar Leghari, Abdul Razak Leghari, both sons of Sodho Leghari, armed with pistols, (3) Ghulam Qadir son of Ameer Bakhsh Tanwari, with hatchet, and two unknown persons, who were not known to me previously, but I can identify them if they are seen by me again, they were having hunters.
6. Accused Ali Akbar told me that I had given Nikahnama to your father, either handover me your daughter Nazia or to pay me the cash amount Rs,2, 00,000 as written in the Nikahnama. Today you are spared, but next time we will kill you. On commotion Ali Nawaz son of Allandin Leghari, Muhammad Ismail son of Raheem Bakhsh Leghari, came running from the house of Muhammad Ali Leghari, who also saw the accused persons clearly and identified them. The accused while issuing threats of murder boarded on 3 motorcycles and drove away towards eastern side by road. Due to night and fear I did not come, but now I have appeared and complain that above accused Ali Akbar Leghari with other accused teased my daughter Nazia and threatened to abduct her and has got prepared a fake Nikahnama so that I should hand over my daughter Nazia to him or pay him cash Rs,2,00,000. He also issued threats of murder. Complaint is made. Action be taken."
7. ' The applicants/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but their bail plea was dismissed by impugned order, dated 26-6-2003.
8. ' At the very outset it is contended by Mr. Imdad Ali Awan learned counsel appearing in Criminal Bail Application No,407 of 2003 that for the time being he does not press the bail plea of applicant/accused Ali Akbar. The bail plea of applicant Ali Akbar stands dismissed.
9. ' I have heard Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant/accused in Criminal Bail Application No,382 of 2003 and Mr. Imdad Ali Awan learned counsel in Criminal Bail Application No,407 of 2003, Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch learned counsel on behalf of complainant and Mr. G.D. Shahani learned Additional Advocate-General on behalf of State. The learned State Counsel conceded to the grant of bail.
10. ' The perusal of material placed on record shows that applicants/accused have been sent up under sections 354, 452, 464, 467, 468, 469, 466, 471, 474, 420, 406, 147, 506(2) and 504, P.P.C. To stand trial. The sections 467, 468, 469, 466, 471 and 504, P.P.C. Are non-cognizable. Sections 354, 420, 147 are bailable. So far section 406, P.P.C. Is concerned, nothing is spelt out from the facts of the case that any property or anything over which complainant party had dominion was entrusted to the accused and he committed breach of the same or dishonestly used or disposed of it.
11. Section 506, P.P.C. Is divided in two A parts. Part 1 is bailable whereas part. II is cognizable, non- bailable and punishable with 7 years. Thus, it goes out of the prohibition contained under section 497, Cr.P.C. Section 452, P.P.C. Has been misapplied as alleged offence was not committed inside the dwelling place. The factum of Nikah by applicant/accused with Musmat Nazia has been denied by him. Alleged offence occurred in the heart of the town, the police station is situated at the distance of one kilometer and telephone, is also installed in the house of complainant but F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of about 19 hours and no plausible explanation with regard to inordinate delay has been given therein. Admittedly the parties are caste fellow but not related inter se. Keeping in view the dicta of apex Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State reported in PLD 1995 SC 34 I am of the considered view that the case necessitates further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And applicants/accused are entitled to bail. Resultantly they are granted bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applications stands disposed of.