2011 P Cr (PLP)

JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.

By this application, prayer has been made for release of the applicants on bail, involved in a case crime No.68 of 2010, under section 365 read with section 34 of the P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Surab. Complainant Haji Muhammad Waris in his report dated 4-10-2010 alleged that on 2-10-2010 at about 7-30 p.m. at Killi Surkh, Surab, the applicants came in a white colour vehicle `Surf' and forcibly abducted his son Muhammad Akbar. Initially, on arrest of the applicants, they moved an application for grant of bail before the Judicial Magistrate, Surab, which was allowed by means of order dated 18-10-2010 and, subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalat, on the application of the complainant, cancelled the bail vide order dated 11-11-2010, hence this application. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and have gone through the documents attached with the application. A tentative perusal of record shows that the F.I.R. has been registered with inordinate and unexplained delay of two days, despite the fact that the police station is situated at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants regarding abduction of the son of the complainant. Although the complainant has not shown the motive behind the incident, but during the investigation, it has come on record that there exist some property dispute between the parties and in such view of the matter, the applicants have been able to make out a case of further inquiry. As regards the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalat on the point of jurisdiction of the Court and that the incident was seen by the eye-witnesses, suffice it to say that the complainant has not mentioned in the F.I.R. the names of said eye-witnesses. No other evidence has come on record to say that the accused/applicants have demanded any ransom from the complainant. Even otherwise, the abductee has yet not been recovered, therefore, the real picture is still shrouded in mystery, as such, the observation of the Additional Sessions Judge that the abductee is in the custody of the applicants is also not justifiable and unwarranted. In such view of the matter, the jurisdiction of the ordinary Court is not barred and the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge to this extent are hereby expunged, as the same would, obviously, prejudice the case of either party. The offence mentioned in the F.I.R. does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Investigation in the case has been completed and applicants are no more required for further investigation or interrogation, wherefor, bail cannot be withheld as of punishment. Thus, in view of above, without touching further merits or demerits of the case, I am inclined to accept the application and enlarge the applicants on bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds to the tune of Rs. 200,000 each and P.R. of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The above Observations are purely of tentative in nature, hence, the trial Court shall not influence from the instant order. These are the reasons of my short order dated 30-11-2010 announced in the open Court. A.R.K./6/Q????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.