2002 PLP 1489 (MLD)

IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Criminal case F.I.R. No.385, dated 15‑8‑2000 was registered at Police Station Satiana, District Faisalabad for offence under sections 365, 392, 337 (iii), 148 and 149, P.P.C. on the reports of Noor Ahmad. According to complainant his sons were involved in criminal case under section 302, P.P.C. One of his sons was convicted and awarded death sentence while the second one was declared a proclaimed offender. He claimed that he contacted certain respectables for effectuation of compromise between the parties and for the purpose came to bus‑stop Satiana alongwith his son, Muhammad Anwar. The complainant and his sons were proceeding to Chak No. 37/GB in a tonga when Muhammad Arshad and others, variously armed, took away Muhammad Anwar in a car bearing Registration No. RIJ‑6301 towards the village. The complainant expressed the apprehension that his son was likely to be done to death by the accused.

2. Muhammad Arshad, Naseer Ahmad, Muhammad Akmal and Mehmood were allowed bail by Judge Special Court Anti‑Terrorism, Faisalabad by order dated 28‑3‑2001. Petition under section 497(5); Cr.P.C. was submitted for cancellation of bail allowed to the accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused had taken away son of the complainant in broad daylight and he was recovered by police from the house of the accused where he was tied with strings and later he was medically examined and injuries were noticed on his person well and the lower Court granted bail to the accused by ignoring the legal and factual aspects of the case. It was also contended that bail granting order was unlawful as the lower Court had declined bail to the accused at one stage and later without there being any fresh ground available to the accused conferred the concession of bail on them and bail was allowed to accused on purely subjective considerations. It was submitted that accused, prima facie, stood connected with the commission of non‑bailable offence and they did not deserve the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that case against the accused was fabricated. According to him, son of the complainant stood convicted in a murder case and he wanted to put pressure on the complainant party in that case to come to terms with him in that case and for that purpose the story was coined. It was also submitted that driver of the tonga in which the petitioner and the alleged abductee were travelling was not examined and no independent evidence were available to connect the respondents with the commission of crime. It was also submitted that fabrication was evident from the fact that criminal case was registered at police station at 9‑45 a.m. and by that time the abductee was not recovered but medico legal report in this respect indicated that he was got examined by the police at 9‑30 a.m. prior to registration of the case but no mention of this fact was made in the F.I.R. It was submitted that bail granting order was a valid and legal order and did not call for interference.

4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have gone through the order as well as record. The offences with which the respondents stand charged with prima facie, would entail maximum sentence of 7 years. The lower Court had allowed bail to the accused -respondents on the ground that their case would not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. View of lower Court does not militate against the law and the bail granting order as such does not call for any interference.‑

5. Dismissed. H.B.T./N‑189/L Application dismissed.