2009 PLP 1272 (MLD)

SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, J.

The accused petitioners have moved Cr. Miscellaneous No. 193/2009 for adding complainant Imam Bakhsh as respondent on which the State counsel has no objection. It is accepted and the office is directed to add Imam Bakhsh complainant as respondent No.2 in the heading of petition.

2. Imam Bakhsh, respondent No.2 is present in Court and his counsel Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai, Advocate submitted Vakalatnama which is placed on file.

3. This bail application arises in peculiar facts and circumstances. The accused-petitioner No.2 Muhammad Saqlain is the nephew of Imam Bakhsh complainant. According to the prosecution version, accused-petitioner No.1 Habibullah planned and accordingly concealed Muhammad Saqlain and one Sanaullah in the house of Asal Din to depict their abduction and earned ransom. When Muhammad Saqlain was so concealed, his maternal uncle Imam Bakhsh, lodged report of his missing in Police Station University, D. I. Khan which was registered vide F.I.R No. 80 dated 25-3-2009 under section 365-A, P.P.C. and in the above mentioned circumstances paid Rs.6,00,000 as ransom. Subsequently, when the aforesaid sham plan for cheating and dishonestly grabbing money, was discovered, sections 419/420/368/387/120-B P.P.C. were substituted for section 365-A P.P.C.

4. The accused-petitioners Habibullah and Muhammad Saqlain were thus arrested, declined bail at lower forums and hence, this petition.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The accused-petitioners have offered judicial confessions which have been duly recorded and placed on file. The amount grabbed as ransom was Rs.6,00,000 out of which Rs. 4,50,000 have been recovered on the pointation of accused-petitioner Habibullah. Sp, the accused-petitioner are well connected with the crime on the basis of the collected evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners emphatically stressed that the offences are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and his arguments were rightly opposed by the opposite panel of lawyers on the ground that even in such cases, the grant of bail is not a vested right.

8. The city of D.I. Khan is already badly affected by the frequent incidents of abductions for ransom. Such a plan, as alleged in the prosecution case, was in fact a new invention in the history of crimes and I do not decide to exercise discretion in favour of accused-petitioners) in releasing them on bail. Hence, the bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./153/P Bail refused.