2008 PLP 2684 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.

Petitioner (Muhammad Shabbir Siddique son of Muhammad Siddique Sindhu, Caste, Jat) seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.600 of 2008, dated 22-5-2008, offence under sections 365, 148, 149 and 395, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Kahna, Lahore.

2. Briefly the prosecution story in the F.I.R. is that on the alleged day of occurrence at 8-30 a.m. the complainant/victim Muhammad Akram was going towards factory along with his brother Mustafa Ramzan, when they reached near Chak Soua Aasil a 2D Car bearing No.LZF 25 reached near them which was being driven by Shabbir Siddique, petitioner, who was friend of the complainant, whereas an unknown person was sitting on the front seat, they got the complainant in the car and said that on return from Adda, he could be dropped at factory; brother of the complainant went towards the factory but complainant was taken forcibly to a Farm House near Village Jhuleky, where victim/complainant was beaten and Mobile Nokia along with an amount of Rs.3,000 was also snatched from the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been roped in the F.I.R. with mala fide and ulterior consideration and the offence alleged is not made out, the petitioner is a student of B.A. Further contends that petitioner has been arrayed as accused due to political rivalry and ulterior consideration and mala fide of the police, is evident from the fact that section 395, P.P.C. has been added, when the co-accused has already been granted bail. Learned counsel states that four co-accused of the petitioner have been granted post-arrest bail and on the ground of consistency petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380, Muhammad Aslam v. State 2000 YLR 1341, Naseer Ahmad v. The State 2008 YLR 1782, Ali Gohar and 5 others v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 652 and Muhammad Dilpazeer v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 2400.

4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant states that petitioner is involved in a heinous offence, wherein complainant/alleged victim was kidnapped and was man-handled by the petitioner and his co-accused; that severe beating was given to the complainant and valuable articles were snatched from the complainant and petitioner is well nominated in the F.I.R. being main accused and during the investigation he has been found guilty on the basis of direct evidence. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied on Abdul Jabbar and 2 others v. The State 2006 PLR 466.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. I am of the considered view from the bare reading of F.I.R. that the application of section 365 requires further inquiry because it is admitted fact in the F.I.R. that at the time of alleged occurrence the petitioner accompanied the complainant while sitting in his car with his consent and if, thereafter, the victim was detained forcibly against his wishes on some Farm house then at the most provision of section 342, P.P.C. would be applicable which is a bailable offence. As far as the allegation of torture and beating is concerned the Medico-legal Certificate attached with the police record has been perused by me, which shows that examination of complainant/victim was conducted on 26-5-2008 and the Doctor had not observed a single mark of violence on the person of the victim which further negate the version of the complainant. Similarly, the provisions of application of section 395, P.P.C. also requires further inquiry when the petitioner and the complainant were friends and complainant accompanied him with his consent and thereafter, due to some quarrel the matter had gone into criminal litigation. The Investigating Officer present in Court states that as far as the snatching of articles is concerned accused party offered oath (Niaab) to complainant for their innocence but the complainant refused to accept this offer. Although the principle of grant of pre-arrest bail is different from the post-arrest yet it is also settled principle of criminal law that if the case of post-arrest bail is made out,, it would be ridiculous to send accused behind the bars, for a few days while dismissing his bail application for pre-arrest bail.

7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-271/L Bail granted.