Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AMIR NABI ABRO VS Respondent: THE STATE
2001 MLD715
2001 MLD715
[Karachi]
Before Muhammad Ashraf Leghari, J
AMIR NABI, ABRO and another‑‑‑Applicants
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.S‑186 of 2000, decided on 31st May, 2000.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 498‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 11/16‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail ‑‑‑Abductee in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. as well as in her affidavit filed in the Court had exonerated the accused of the charge‑-‑Parties were closely related inter se and by the efforts of the community people they had arrived at a compromise which did not need to be disturbed or discouraged‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail was granted to the accused in circumstances.
Muhammad Nawaz Chandio for Applicants. Ali Azhar Tunio, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
ORDER
Complainant Sikandar Ali lodged first information report with Police Station; Mehar on 23‑6‑1998 stating that his daughter Mst. Parveen was married with his nephew Ali Asghar about three years back. It is stated that accused Farooq, Tarique Ali and Aamir are the maternal nephews of complainant. On 18‑6‑1998 they had come to their house alongwith Zaheer Ahmed. The complainant went out of his house and while he was coming back, he was informed by his son‑in‑law Ali Asghar and brother Muhammad Ali that the aforesaid accused had forcibly abducted Mst. Parveen and his son Shahbaz, whereafter the complainant proceeded to Hyderabad and contacted his elder maternal nephew Khalid and apprised him of the aforesaid facts. In the meantime Shahbaz son of the complainant reached there and narrated that the accused had forcibly brought the; girl to the house of Roshan and Javed Shaikh at Hyderabad and they were causing maltreatment to her. She was being pressurized to marry with accused Farooq, to which the abductee had refused. Thereafter, Farooq has given him the letter which was delivered to his father. The complainant was thereafter directed by Khalid to meet his father. The complainant, his son Shahbaz and Ali Asghar went to Qhulam Nabi father of accused who was keeping them on hopes but after refused time he refused to get Mst. Parveen returned. The complainant ultimately lodged this F.I.R.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties are close relatives as the accused are maternal nephews f complainant and on the intervention of notables of the community the have settled their dispute amicably. It is stated that in fact neither there was abduction nor rape but it was a dispute of matrimonial affairs which has been settled by them. Under these circumstances the complainant and his daughter alleged abductee have filed their affidavits wherein they have exonerated the present applicants from the charges.
Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio learned Assistant Advocate‑General opposes this bail application on the ground that 164, Cr.P.C. statement of abductee has been recorded and therefore, filing of her affidavit at this stage would amount to a tampering of evidence.
From the contents of F.I.R. it appears that accused Farooq, Tariq and Aamir are sons of sister of complainant and soon after the incident the complainant tried to contact the elder brother of accused as well as their father. It appears that notables of their community have intervened and have succeeded to bring about the settlement between the parties. As a result of which complainant as well as abductee Mst. Parveen have filed their affidavits and exonerated the applicants. So far as the absconsion of applicants is concerned, the applicants are in service and were regularly attending their duties. The certificate to that effect is produced on record and it appears that the police has made no efforts to arrest them in this case. The abductee has stated that nobody had abducted her nor anybody committed rape upon her. The statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. and her affidavit before this Court as well as before First Class Magistrate needs consideration and in such situation and peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that since the parties are closely related and by the efforts of community people, they have arrived at compromise which should not be disturbed and discouraged. Under these circumstances the applicants are granted pre‑arrest bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. .
N.H.Q./A‑115/K? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Pre‑arrest bail allowed.