2014 PLP 133 (YLR)

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.716, dated 8-12-2011, offence under sections 302, 365-A, 201, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, City Arifwala Pakpattan.

2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the crime report is that on 3-12-2011 at 3-10 p.m. he along with his co-accused abducted Zahid, son of the complainant for ransom. Subsequently on recovery of dead body offence under sections 302, 201, P.P.C., were added.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in the instant case by the complainant in connivance with the local police against the actual facts and circumstances. It is argued that the story contained in the crime report is highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of five days in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. It is argued that there are contradictions/discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which itself make the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Adds that recovery of mobile phone belonging to the deceased, one motorcycle and handkerchief allegedly used during the occurrence have been planted against the petitioner in order to strengthen the prosecution case. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in jail.

4. Contrarily, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition with full force. It is argued that the petitioner is named in the crime report with specific allegation. Adds that recovery of mobile phone of the deceased along with motorcycle and handkerchief used during the occurrence have been recovered from the petitioner. It is contended that the dead body was also recovered on the pointation of the petitioner. Such circumstances, it is argued, sufficiently connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence alleged against him. Learned counsel for the complaisant submits that the whole prosecution evidence has been concluded and there is likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future.

5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also perused the record available on file.

6. The petitioner is named in the crime report with specific allegation of abducting son of the complainant for ransom. The petitioner was taken into custody by the police on 8-12-2011 and on the same day dead body of the deceased was recovered on the pointation of the petitioner. Even mobile phone along with motorcycle and handkerchief used during the occurrence have been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty during the course of investigation and his name has been placed in Column No.3 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Prima facie the petitioner is sufficiently connected with the commission of the offence alleged against him. It is a settled principle of law that while disposing of bail applications the courts are supposed to make tentative assessment of the material available on the record and deeper appreciation of evidence/material available on the record is always deprecated by the Superior Courts while adjudicating the ancillary matters like bail applications. Moreover, after commencement of the trial, the Superior Courts ordinarily do not interfere in the bail granting or refusing orders. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of "Muhammad Sadik and others v. The State (1980 SCMR 203), wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- "Ss. 497 & 498

Bail

Date already fixed and trial to commence shortly

Not fair, held to go into merits of case in form of a bail application at leave to appeal stage

Case being not fit for grant of special leave to appeal, petition dismissed" Such view was affirmed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Allah Ditto and others v. The State" (1990 SCMR 307), wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan held as follows:-- "

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307, 379 & 302/149

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Bail

Case had already been fixed for evidence by Trial Court and therefore no ground was made out for grant of leave

Petition was dismissed in circumstances". Similar view was also affirmed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Gul Akbar v. The State (2007 SCMR 1798) and Muhamamd Hanif v. Shafgat Nazir and others (2007 SCMR 1857). Bulk of prosecution evidence has already been recorded by the learned trial court and there is likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of law laid down in the cases referred to above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.

7. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Therefore, the instant bail petition having no merits is hereby dismissed. HBT/Z-16/L Bail refused.