2006 PLP 296 (MLD)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Through this petition Afzal Khan petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.779, registered at Police Station, University Town, Peshawar on 22-8-2005, for an offence under sections 365-A/109/148/149, P.P.C., read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2. On 24-7-2005 Sharafat All, resident of Palosi, complainant in this case, made report at Police Station University Town, Peshawar about abduction of his brother Shahid Khan (18/20), by unknown persons. During investigation of the case petitioner was arrested on 22-8-2005 by Usman Ali, S.H.O., Police Station, Hayatabad. Shahid Khan abductee also appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statements were recorded. The petitioner moved an application for bail before learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Peshawar, which was rejected vide order, dated 7-10-2005.

3. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner, in support of the bail application, submitted that there is no tangible and impartial evidence on record regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime; that the alleged eye-witnesses, Inamullah and Saeedullah P.Ws. were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence; that the conduct of complainant and Inamullah and Saeedullah P.Ws., regarding involvement of the petitioner is highly doubtful and that case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. Contrarily, Mr. Obaidullah Anwar, learned D.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State assisted by Mr. Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Advocate for the complainant opposed the bail application and reiterated that prosecution is in possession of sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the crime; that the abductee was released on receiving Rs.15,00,000 as ransom and that no case has been made out by the petitioner for further inquiry as laid down under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief by way of granting bail.

5. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner is one of the accused persons involved for abduction of Shahid Ali abductee for ransom. The statement of the abductee clearly suggests that the petitioner had a hand in the affair. Prima facie no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage. Section 497, Cr.P.C. is divided into two parts. One part deals with those cases which are called offences falling under prohibitory clause and the other part of section 497, Cr.P.C. deals with those offences which do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The considerations for both clauses of cases are different from each other. It has been held by the apex Supreme Court that bail in cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause should be granted as a rule and bail should be refused as an exception. Therefore, it is obvious from the above that while considering bail in cases which fall under prohibitory clause, the Court has to be more vigilant and slow in granting the discretionary relief of bail. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, reasons and as the present case is covered by the prohibitory clause, this bail application is dismissed. The observations made above, are tentative in nature and relate to the order in hand only. H.B.T./575/P Application dismissed.