2007 PLP 1460 (MLD)

HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.

Through this single order, I intend to dispose of two bail applications titled, "Haqnawaz etc. v. The State etc." (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3942-B of 2006) and "Muhammad Sardar v. The State" (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3957-B of 2006) as both the petitions have stemmed from one and the same F.I.R.

2. All the petitioners are seeking post-arrest bail in a case F.LR. No. 193 of 2006, dated 7-8-2006 registered at Police Station Sadar Cantt. District Multan, in respect of offence under section 364, P.P.C.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of Muhammad Ashraf complainant is that in the month of June, 2006, Haquawaz and Muhammad Saleem, petitioners, along with Azeem co-accused visited the house of the complainant and developed illicit relations with his daughter namely Mst. Kalsoom. After some days, they abducted said Kalsoom and instead of returning her hand, extended threats to the complainant to abduct his son namely Liaqat. Thereafter the aforementioned accused allegedly forced Mst. Kalsoom, the daughter of the complainant to sign certain documents and a suit was got instituted on her behalf. It was further alleged that the accused demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000 from the complainant. Afterwards, Liaqat, the son of the complainant was allegedly abducted by the petitioners and five other co-accused on 3-7-2006. Hence, the F.I.R. was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that there is inordinate and unexplained delay of more than one moth in lodging the F.LR. that the prosecution story is totally false and cooked-up; that there is no direct evidence of the abduction of Liaqat at the hands of the petitioners and co-accused; that the instant case had been registered due to mala fide of the complainant as a retaliation of alleged abduction of his daughter by the petitioners and their relatives; that net has been thrown much wide and almost all the members of the family including the females have been involved in this case and that in the F.I.R., dated 19-7-2006 lodged at the instance of Mst. Kalsoom Bibi, daughter of the complainant, no mention regarding the abduction of said Liaqat has been made, though, he had been allegedly abducted prior to registration of said case which makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. He maintains that from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., offence under section 364, P.P.C. is not made out and at the most, the facts and circumstances of the case attract the provisions of section 365, P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioners being specifically named in the F.LR. are not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail, He adds that in the statement recorded under section 1.64, Cr.P.C., the alleged abductee namely Liaqat Ali had fully involved the petitioners.

6. After hearing the arguments and going through the record appended with both the petitions, I have concluded that admittedly, there is a delay of more than one month in lodging the F.I.R. It has been further noticed by me that in the F.I.R., neither the detail of the manner of the abduction of Liaqat had been given nor the name of any witness of abduction had been mentioned. Perusal of the F.I.R. further reveals that A without disclosing source of information qua the abduction of Liaqat the alleged abductee, eight persons including ladies had been named in the F.LR. During the investigation after three days of the lodging of the F.I.R., one witness namely Malik Atta was produced by the complainant. Said witness did not implicate any of the accused regarding the abduction of Liaqat. On 21-8-2006, two other ladies were produced before the Investigating Officer as eye-witnesses of the abduction of Liaqat but they also failed to implicate the petitioners in this case. As the complainant had railed to produce any convincing evidence regarding the abduction of his son Liaqat, the Investigation Officer found the case false and reported for its cancellation. However, after the alleged recovery of Liaqat, the abductee, the police arrested the petitioners and challaned them. According to the statement of the abductee recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., on the day of occurrence, he was abducted by Saleem petitioner who after injecting some tranquillizer made the abductee to sit in a car. In said statement he further deposed that after regaining his senses on the next day he round himself in a room. There he was kept in detention by the accused for a period of four months. According to the said statements, he himself: got released from the custody of his captors. Said statement shows that the abductee was not recovered by the police from the custody of the accused. Record further shows that he was produced by some patwari before the Investigating Officer.

7. Perusal of the record further exposes that Mst. Kalsoom, sister of the abductee, had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband on 13-6-2006. During the pendency of the said suit, she was sent to Dar-ul-Aman and on 14-7-2006, she made a statement before the Court that she was not abducted by any one but she showed her desire to accompany her parents. Thereafter on 19-7-2006 she got a case registered against Haqnawaz and Muhammad Saleem petitioners under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. Interestingly, neither during the statements made before the learned Civil Court nor in the said F.I.R.,, she made any mentioned about the abduction of her brother i.e. Liaqat at the hands of the petitioners, though, according to the prosecution, Liaqat abductee had been abducted before the lodging of said F.I.R. No. 278 of 2006. It has further been brought to my notice that the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of said Mst. Kalsoom was found to be false and cancelled. 7-A. The narration of all the above mentioned observations, makes the case of the petitioners as that of further inquiry, to say the least. Prima facie prosecution's story seems to be hazy. it is established law that benefit of doubt can be given to accused even at bail stage. Besides that the question of applicability of section 364, P.P.C. would also be requiring serious consideration of the learned trial Court, at the relevant time. The petitioners are behind the bars since 16-10-2006. Some of the accused are yet to be arrested and therefore, early conclusion of the trial is not in sight. It is established law that bail cannot be withheld as a measure of punishment.

8. For what has been stated above, both the above applications are accepted and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their Furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./H-24/L Bail granted.