Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HANIF Alias HANIF SHIKARPURI VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Sabihuddin Ahmed, Kamal Mansur Alam Title: MUHAMMAD HANIF Alias HANIF SHIKARPURI vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Bail Application No.941 of 1997 Date of Judgment:1997-08-07 Reported As: 2001 MLD 963 Result: Bail granted
Judgment ORDER According to F.I.R. No.32 of 1997 of Police Station Bahadurabad, Karachi East, lodged by Muhammad Farooq on 3-4-1997, complainant's vehicle was lifted on the night of 31-1-1997 and later on the demands of the lifters, on telephone, the complainant paid first Rs.40,000 and then again Rs.60,000 to them in the hope of getting back the vehicle. It is alleged that in spite of such payment the vehicle was not returned. On 30th March, 1997 in response to a telephone call, Sikandar, the brother of the complainant reached the appointed place where he was taken hostage. Subsequently the abductors demanded on telephone ransom money of Rs.5,00,000. On 3-4-1997 the aforesaid F.I.R. Was lodged in the above circumstances. In the F.I.R. The only person named is Muhammad Asif to whom the aforesaid payments were made. It appears that on 4-4-1997 a trap was laid by the police and Muhammad Asif was arrested and on his pointation, both, the vehicle as well as the abductee were recovered. In his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C: recorded on 4-4-1997 the abductee named the applicant in the context that one Nisar had informed the abductee that he could be released only on the instructions of the applicant or one Abdul Rehman. Except for this hearsay reference by the abductee about the involvement of the applicant in the crime there is nothing on record to connect him with the offence. From the investigation papers we find that accused Muhammad Asif had named 4 persons as being involved in the offence with him, but these did not include the applicant. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate for the complainant that the applicant is a business competitor of the complainant and in order to ruin the complainant's business by causing him loss he manoeuvered first the lifting of complainant's vehicle and then abduction of complainant's brother. On the other hand, with equal vehemence, it was argued by
---
## Page 2
Mr. Ashraf Kazi, the applicant's counsel, that it was due to the business rivalry between the parties that complainant's brother maliciously named the applicant.