1990 PLP 182 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365/325/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused in jail for two months and no longer required by police ‑‑‑Co‑accused alleged to have kidnapped and confined abductee had already been bailed out‑‑‑Accused was allegedly armed with a knife, but no knife injury was attributed to him and was assigned a blunt weapon injury‑‑‑Bail cannot be refused as punishment‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Rana Hassan Ali Mahmood for Petitioner. Hussain Ameen Lodhi for the State. The brief facts of the bail application are that an F.I.R. No. 49/88 was registered at P.S. Dera Nawab Sahib on 22‑9‑1988 under section 365/325/34, P.P.C., by Atta Mohammad complainant. It was alleged therein that one Muhammad Aslam s/o Atta Muhammad was forcibly abducted by Muhammad Tufail, Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Arshad, all accused in the F.I.R, stated above, and that the said abductee was confined to a room in the house of Mohammad Tufail stated herein and on being rescued the abductee was found to have suffered eight injuries, one of which was declared to be grievous for being a broken leg.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the other co -accused who are accused of abduction and illegal confinement of the said abductee are already on bail. He further contends that the petitioner is accused of wielding a knife but an injury attributed to him and alleged to be caused by him is said to be by blunt weapon. He also points out that the challan is complete and already submitted to the trial Court and that the petitioner is not a previous convict and is no longer required by the police.

3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the jail application on the ground that the petitioner is the main accused and has caused a grievous injury.

4. As the petitioner is no longer required by the police and is in jail for the last two months, and the co‑accused, who were alleged to have kidnapped and confined the abductee, have already been bailed out, and as the petitioner was alleged to have been armed with a knife but no knife injury has been attributed to him and the injury alleged to have been caused by him is by the blunt weapon, and as the bail is not to be refused as punishment as laid down by the superior Courts, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Duty Magistrate/A.C., Bahawalpur. N.H.Q./M‑1621/L Bail granted.