1997 PLP 2717 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365‑A/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Case of co‑accused already granted bail was distinguishable as they had not made any judicial confession whereas accused had made a judicial confession fully implicating himself‑‑‑Offence with which accused was charged was punishable with death‑‑ Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Yousuf Moulvi for Applicant. Suleman Habibullah for A.‑G. for the State. Applicant Arbab Ali has been arrested in Crime No.10 of 1994 of Police Station Faiz Muhammad Narejo under sections 365‑A/34, P.P.C. read with section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance. This case was registered by complainant Ruknuddin on 20‑3‑1994. Ruknuddin stated in his complaint that on 20th March, 1994 he alongwith his brother Ghulam Nabi, his father Lal Bux, his uncle Arbab Ali and one Azizullah were sitting in their Otaq at 7‑15 p.m., when 4 culprits armed with Kalashnikovs with their faces open, came there and forcibly took away Lal Bux and Arbab Ali with them, threatening the others not to raise cries. Lal Bux and Arbab Ali were taken to near banana cultivation After some time when the complainant party raised hue and cry some villagers gathered there and they tried to follow the culprits while Ruknuddin went to lodge the report. Ruknuddin stated that Lal Bux and Arbab Ali had been abducted for receiving ransom. The case was challaned on 30th May, 1994 when still the kidnapees were in custody of the culprits. On 28‑6‑1994 kidnapees Lal Bux and Arbab Ali returned back after an amount of Rs.25 lacs towards ransom was paid for their freedom. The police thereafter recorded further statement of Ruknuddin as well as the kidnapees. The complainant Ruknuddin in his further statement, giving the details about the demand and payment of ransom amount, had disclosed that he had been approaching many persons and finally he had paid ransom of Rs.25 lacs and some of the amount was shared by co‑accused Altaf Hussian Shah and the present applicant Arbab Ali and others who were found in company of other armed persons, who were keeping the custody of the kidnapees. On such further statement of Ruknuddin the applicant Arbab Ali was arrested and Arbab Ali made a judicial confession on 15‑9‑1994 3i confessing that he had links with the culprits, namely, Basheer Narejo Altaf Hussain Shah, Asghar Narejo, Jusoo Narejo and Fatoo Narejo. In his confession he stated that out of the ransom account of Rs.25 lacs a sum of Rs.20 lacs was paid to Asghar Narejo while the remaining amount was kept by Arbab Ali for distribution among himself and others. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not one of the culprits, who had entered the Otaq and abducted Lal Bux and Arbab Ali and his further argument is that no other witness has implicated him. The learned A.A.‑G. on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present applicant stating that the applicant is accused of receiving the amount of ransom. After the payment of ransom the kidnapees had been released and that the punishment for the offence is death sentence. Besides, the applicant himself has made a judicial confession immediately after his arrest. The learned counsel for the applicant has tried to show that co‑accused Syed Altaf Hussain Shah and Muhammad Panjal have already been granted bail in this case, therefore, the principles of consistency was attracted. We have gone through the orders passed in case of Syed Altaf Hussain Shah and Muhammad Panjal. Syed Altaf Hussain Shah had not made any judicial confession and so also co‑accused Muhammad Panjal. Besides, bail to P.W. Muhammad Panjal was granted on the basis of affidavits filed by Ruknuddin and Azizullah exonerating Muhammad Panjal. The allegations against co‑accused Altaf Hussain Shah were that he had managed the payment of the amount of ransom through others. The distinguishing feature in the cases of Altaf Hussain and Panjal is the judicial confession made by the applicant Arbab Ali fully implicating himself. The offence is punishable with death. Under these circumstances, we do not find cogent grounds for release of the applicant on bail in this case. Therefore, we reject the bail application of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant also made a grievance before us that ‑the applicant has remained in jail for more than one year while the case has not made any progress. We, therefore, issue a direction to the trial Court to proceed with this case on priority basis and examine the material witnesses in this case within a period of 4 months from the date of this order. The applicant may repeat his request for bail before the trial Judge after 4 months, which may be considered on merits at the relevant time. N.H.Q./A‑38/K Bail refused.