1996 PLP 1862 (MLD)

Gul Muhammad Abro for Applicant. Abdul Lateef Ansari, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 14th May 1996. The brief facts leading to this application are that on 9‑11‑1992 complainant Gul Muhammad Unar lodged his report being Cr. No.21 of 1992 at P.S. Nasri under sections 365‑A, 148 and 149, P.P.C. along with section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance stating therein that he,' his brother Allan and Samano were going to Sakrand from their village on a motorcycle and when they reached at Mehrabpur minor bridge they saw seven dacoits coming from sugarcane cultivation. He identified the culprits to be Aadho Lal with Rocket launcher, Rajab, Jam Wazir, the present applicant/accused, and Rano More with guns while Rahim and Magsi alias Mizile with Kalashinkovs. It is also the case of the prosecution that complainant Gul Muhammad was kidnapped and his brother Allan and Samano were asked to arrange for the ransom and the culprits alongwith the complainant Gul Muhammad Unar went away towards Jungle. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 25‑9‑1991 Muhammad Sadiq who is Masat of the complainant paid Rs.2,30,000 as ransom to Aadho Lal as such the complainant was released. That complainant was threatened by the dacoits to keep quite else he and his family members will be done away . However after the lapse of one year the complainant lodged the report and the Police after usual investigation arrested the accused and challaned them but the present applicant/accused was shown absconder in Column No.2 as absconder. Thereafter, he was arrested on 7‑5‑1994 and challaned. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the incident took place on 3‑11‑1991 while the matter was reported to the Police on 9‑11‑1992 after 14 months. That the case has not proceeded. He has relied upon an unreported Bail Application No.232 of 1993 (Ghulam Muhammad v. The State decided on 11‑5‑1993). Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari, learned Assistant A.‑G. has opposed the bail application and has argued that the delay has satisfactorily been explained as the culprits had threatened the complainant and his family members that if the matter is reported to the Police the whole family will be done away. That the name of the applicant/accused, appears in the F.I.R. along with the specific allegation that he was armed with gun. That all the three eye‑witnesses namely Samano, Allan and the complainant have fully supported the prosecution version and Samano, Allan and Sadiq have supported the prosecution even in their 164, Cr.P.C. statements. That the applicant/accused has remained fugitive and has absconded for more than 26 months. He has relied on the case of Haji Guloo Khan v. Gul Diaz Khan and others 1995 SCMR 1765 wherein it is held that the delay in registering the F.I.R. in the case or F.I.R. plausible explanation for the delay in filing the F.I.R. is once again a question which can be gone into 'at the trial only and not at the stage of deciding the bail application. According to him the question of delay can only be looked into by the trial Court at the time of proceeding with the case and not at this stage. . We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel and with their assistance have perused the record. Admittedly there is delay of about 14 months in lodging the F.I.R. but that has been explained that the complainant and his family members were under the threats. That name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R. and specific allegation is reported against him. That he has remained fugitive of law and has absconded for more than 26 months. That the case‑law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable wherein it was held by our learned brothers that while lodging the F.I.R. delay was not explained and the evidence was only of the son of the complainant and there was no identification test and after the arrest but here the name of the applicant/accused transpires in the F.I.R. He has absconded for 26 months. There are as many as three eye?witnesses who have fully supported the prosecution case in their 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. statements. Also 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. statements of Sadiq who paid the ransom to the co‑accused Aadho Lal. Offence under section 365‑A, P.P.C. is a heinous offence and punishable with death or imprisonment of life and falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances we are of the view that this application merits no consideration at this stage, which is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./W‑5/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.