IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Bail Appln. No. 272 of 2009.
Order with signature of Judge
Mr. Justice Khalid Ali Z. Kazi.
Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh.
Mr. Ghulam Ali Rind, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, the State counsel.
O R D E R
Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J-. Through this application, applicant Sher Mohammad seeks post arrest bail in crime No. 103/2004, P.S Buxapur, for offences under section 324, 353, 365-A, 148, 149 P.P.C. read with section 17 (3) Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and section 7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, after his bail plea has been declined by the learned trial Court that is to say Anti Terrorism Court, Jacobabad, vide order dated 07.5.2009.
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 04.11.2004, one Mohammad Akram son of Ghulam Fareed Arain, resident of T.T hotel, Madina colony, Chak No. 10, Sadiq-abad, District Rahim Yar Khan was abducted by four persons for ransom on the strength of weapons in a car belonging to the abductee Mohammad Akram which he used to ply as taxi in Sadiq-abad area Punjab. Then the said abductee Mohammad Akram was recovered after an encounter of the police party comprising Inspector Shabir Ahmed SHO P.S Buxapur and his subordinate staff with the kidnappers near link road leading towards Misri Khan village on National Highway Kandhkot-Kashmore road and one culprit namely, Mureed alias Muhammad Mureed Jakhrani was also apprehended at the spot, one kalashnikov loaded with magazine was recovered from his possession and whereas the rest three kidnappers made good their escape, leaving one pistol there. Abductee Mohammad Akram, arrested accused Mureed alias Mohammad Mureed and recovered property were brought at police station Buxapur, where Inspector Shabir Ahmed SHO P.S Buxapur lodged his above F.I.R.
3. After the investigation accused Mureed alias Mohammad Mureed was sent up with the challan showing three accused namely, Fareed son of Abdul Karim Bhangwar, Sher Mohammad son of Biland (applicant) and Muneer son of Mohammad Sharif Mazari as absconders.
4. On 22.5.2006, applicant Sher Mohammad was arrested and he was sent up with the subsequent challan.
5. The bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Sher Mohammad before the learned trial Court was rejected vide order dated 07.5.2009, hence this bail application.
6. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case, that the name of the applicant does not find place in the F.I.R, and that no recovery was effected from him, therefore, per him, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. The learned State counsel has raised no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant.
8. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before the Court with the assistance of the learned State counsel. No doubt the name of applicant does not appear in F.I.R, but abductee Mohammad Akram Arain has named the present applicant Sher Mohammad to be one of the four culprits who kidnapped him for ransom and thereby he has implicated the present applicant in the commission of this crime, the applicant remained fugitive from law for more than one and half year and thereafter he was arrested and sent up with the supplementary challan, the learned advocate for the applicant has not pleaded any hostility between the applicant Sher Mohammad and abductee Muhammad Akram Arain, and prima facie there is sufficient material available against the applicant Sher Mohammad to connect him with the above offences, which fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of what has been discussed above we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out his case for grant of bail therefore, this bail application is dismissed.
10. However, the learned trial Court is directed to record evidence of the witnesses including abductee Mohammad Akram Arain by procuring their attendance even through coercive process if needed and conclude the trial expeditiously as required by law. The applicant may repeat his bail application before the learned trial Court after the evidence of material witnesses is recorded, which the trial Court shall decide on its own merits accordingly.
11. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application; the same shall not influence the mind of the learned trial court while deciding the case.