1997 PLP 2266 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑ Accused was not named in the F. I. R.‑‑‑Abductee after his recovery even had not charged the accused for the crime in his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Confession made by accused was exculpatory in nature and co‑accused in their confessional statements of inculpatory nature had not involved him‑‑ Role attributed to accused by the complainant in his subsequent statement in the commission of the offence was based on surmises, conjectures and presumptions‑‑‑Case against accused, thus, being one of further inquiry, Sessions Court had rightly exercised its discretion in allowing bail to him‑‑ Accused after his release on bail had not misused the concession‑‑‑Bail granted to accused was not recalled in circumstances. Kh. Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Hakeem Khan for Respondent. Mr. Zafar for the State. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1995. P.W. Taj Wali on, 27‑5‑1995 at 10‑30 a.m. lodged' a report about the missing of his son Liaqat Ali. He did not charge any one of kidnapping of his son. Later on Liaquat Ali was recovered and his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25‑5‑1995. In his statement he charged Najeebullah and others. He has not charged the present accused‑respondent for the offence in question. It was in the statement of Taj Wali complainant recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 1‑6‑1995 that the name of present accused figures for helping the co‑accused in the crime. Noor Afzal after his arrest moved the Court of Sessions Judge, Nowshera for his release on bail who vide his order dated 9‑7‑1995 admitted the accused‑respondent to bail. Taj Wali complainant petitioner has now moved this Court through the instant application for re calling the bail order and remanding the accused to judicial lock‑up.

2. Arguments heard and the case file perused with the help of the learned counsel. The record indicates that the present accused‑respondent is not charged in the F.I.R. The kidnapee also did not charge the accused‑respondent for the crime in question. He rather charged Najeebullah and others. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed much stress on the confessional statement of the accused‑respondent and the statement of the complainant and argued that in view of this the accused‑respondent was not entitled to the concession of bail. Firstly, the confession of the accused‑respondent is exculpatory in nature and secondly the role attributed to the accused by the complainant in the commission of the offence is based on surmises, conjectures and presumptions. It follows that the respondent had just been involved on suspicion. The co‑accused, namely, Murad Ali, Siraj, and Najeebullah have also made confessional statements which are inculpatory in nature wherein they have not mentioned the name of the present accused‑ respondent as their accomplice. All the above facts when put together show that the case of the accused‑respondent is one of the further enquiry and the learned Sessions Judge, has rightly exercised his discretion in allowing bail to the accused‑respondent. Over and above it is not the case of the complainant that the accused‑respondent after his release on bail has misused the concession. In the circumstances I see no force in the petition and dismiss the same. N.H.Q./1968/P Petition dismissed.