2019 PLP 718 (MLD)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner has been booked by the local Police vide FIR No.02/2016, dated 17.04.2016 under section 365-B/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Dodishal District Diamer.

2. The petitioner applied for bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Diamer by filing on bail petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. bearing Cr. Misc-No. 07/2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 04-04-2017 and being aggrieved from the said order, the instant bail petition has been filed before this Court for post arrest bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at bar that the petitioner has been involved in the case maliciously and without any foundation. Per learned counsel there is no worth reliance evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and further that the petitioner was present in District Ghizer on the day of occurrence and was attending a wedding ceremony. The offences imposed in the FIR are not attracted and the case of the present petitioner is one of the further inquiry, falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel relied on 1998 PCr.LJ 196 and PLD 2008 SC 376 in support of his contentions.

4. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail application with vehemence and submitted that the petitioner/ accused is directly charged in the FIR and a specific role is attributed to him in commission of offence. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petition is devoid of merit and be rejected for safe administration of justice.

5. I heard both the parties at length, perused record of the case and the judgment of the trial Court.

6. The bail application which was filed in the trial Court was also perused. The learned defence counsel was confronted with the bail application filed in the trial Court, wherein the plea of alibi of the petitioner was not raised and first time it has been raised before this Court. There is no such embargo to argue a ground before this Court if the same was not taken in the bail application but any such ground which has a material bearing on the fate of the case, if was waived and not raised before the trial Court, the appellate Court may ignore the same. The plea of alibi cannot be entertained and same may be agitated before the trial Court if so needed. However, the allegations of abduction are attributed to one of the co-accused namely Sulaman son of Katuro, who though is real brother of the petitioner but the questions of involvement of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in jail as his co-accused are at large. There are no allegations that it was the petitioner who kidnapped or abducted Mst. Irshana with intent to compel her for marriage to a person against her will. The statement of Mst. Irshana under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07/07/2016 after a period of 03 months and there is no explanation available on record for such a long delay. In her statement she has not leveled any incriminating allegation against the present petitioner. The case of the petitioner has become one of the further inquiry.

7. In the view of above discussion the petition is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of a bail bound of Rs. 1000000/- (Ten lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court Chilas, District Diamer. HBT/171/GB Bail granted.