2012 PLP 120 (MLD)

The petitioners six in number seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.85 of 2009 registered under sections 365-A, 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Sadar Duniapur, District Lodhran.

2. Briefly the prosecution version contained in the F.I.R. recorded on the strength of written complaint of Muhammad Asim is that his brother, Muhammad Hazim along with his four friends proceeded to Lahore on car and at about 10-00 p.m., in the area of Police Station Sadar Duniapur were abducted by some un-known persons.

3. Heard adversaries and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that petitioners are not nominated in the F.I.R. who later on were implicated by way of supplementary statement with malice-in-fact but even then no role was ascribed to them. Further contended that nothing was recovered from the petitioners. Opposing the bail petition, the learned D.P.-G. though admitted that petitioners are not nominated in the F.I.R. but argued that they were implicated at the instance of complainant by way of supplementary statement dated 18-8-2009. Submitted that complainant had no bias, animosity prompting him to implicate the petitioners falsely. Further argued that petitioners are involved in heinous offence and being hardened and desperate criminals no premium can be granted to them.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners are not nominated in the F.I.R. and were implicated by way of supplementary statement made by complainant on 18-8-2009, which is second in series and that too made after six months. The complainant got recorded first supplementary statement on 10-5-2009 nominating as many as 15 persons to the exclusion of present petitioners. Evidentiary value of supplementary statement is always subject to legal reservation. Even otherwise, perusal of the said statement does not disclose source of information in order to connect the petitioners in the offences under which they have been charged. The abductees in their respective statements also did not attribute any overt act to the petitioners. Nothing was recovered at the instance of petitioners. Co-accused Musharaf Abbas, who was also implicated in the second supplementary statement dated 18-9-2009 having same role was admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 18-5-2011.

5. Argument advanced by the learned D.P.-G. that petitioners are desperate and hardened criminal cannot advance plea of prosecution at this stage in view of non-availability of convincing evidence to suggest in a like manner. Registration of case under the provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by itself is not sufficient to decline bail in the absence of sufficient incriminating evidence. The petitioners are in judicial lock up and no more required. Further detention of petitioners as such will not serve any useful purpose as the bail cannot be withheld as punishment.

6. Pursuant to above discussion we are inclined to accept the petition and as such while allowing the bail application, the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in a sum of Rs.100,000 (one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-166/L Bail granted.