2015 P Cr (PLP)

MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.

The petitioners seek post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.273 dated 30-5-2013 registered under sections 395, 365 and 411, P.P.C. at P.S. City Chichawatni, District, Sahiwal.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with their co-accused snatched cash and mobile phone from the complainant and also demanded ransom money from him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely involved in the case; that no specific role is attributed to them except that they are wife, mother and daughter of the male accused; that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right under the first proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioners have been behind the bars since 24-10-2013; that the investigation is complete and the petitioners are no more required for this purpose.

4. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, learned DPG has vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the petitioners, contending that it is a case attracting the provisions of section 365-A, P.P.C., and the police have wrongly registered the case under section 365, P.P.C. He has invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 16-11-2013 passed by a learned Magistrate Section-30, Chichawatni in which he had washed his hands of by observing that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the bail petition moved by the petitioners. When questioned, whether section 365-A, P.P.C. was ever added in the wake of the recommendation made by the learned Magistrate Section-30, Chichawatni, he confirmed after verifying the police file that no such offence has been added to date. At the same time, he relied upon a judgment reported as "Junaid Rehman etc. v. The State etc." (PLD 2011 SC 1135) to make the submission that it is irrelevant as to under what section a case is registered by the police. He elaborates that wherever there is an allegation of demanding of ransom, the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts would stand ousted and the case would be triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court constituted and established under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Resultantly, all bail applications are also to be moved there. He has also placed reliance on the case reported as "Javed Iqbal v. The State etc." (2012 SCMR 140).

5. At this juncture, a question was put to the I.O. Liaqat Ali S.I. as to whether any evidence regarding the demanding of ransom by the accused has been collected by him, he answered in the negative. He was frank enough to admit that the matter was discussed threadbare by the prosecuting agency at Chichawatni, Sahiwal but all the officers appointed there were of the confirmed view that no case under section 365-A appears to have been made out. Resultantly, the matter was not pursued any further.

6. I would acknowledge the labour and industry put in by the learned DPG in searching the case law on the subject but I find myself unable to go along with him, especially in view of the categorical and unequivocal statement made by the I.O. of this case. Be that as it may, as things stand, the case of the petitioners is covered by the second proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. and they are entitled to be enlarged on bail as a matter of right.

7. In view of the above, the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MWA/S-71/L Bail granted.