1976 P Cr (PLP)

M. Zafar for the Complainant, The learned counsel for the petitioners conveyed information at the out-set that Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Ashfaque co‑accused were allowed bail by A. C. Gujrat, on 10th June, 1475, and Manzoor alias Jhoori co‑accused, on 19th curie, 1975; that after the grant of interim bail, the petitioners had joined investigation on 6th, 7th and 12th June, 1975.

2. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that CIA. Mhammad Anwar samma petitioner No. 1 was allowed bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 3542/8‑74 Crl. Misc. 3645/8‑74, Crl. Misc. No. 4255/.8‑74 (corruption cases) and Crl. Misc. No. 4053/B‑75 (case under section 302 P. P. C.) that Ch. Muhammad anwar Samma petitioner No. 1 is an important member of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar group and the relations between Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar Governor Punjab and Mr. Mohammad Hanif Ramey, Chief Minister Punjab had reached strained pitch and since long Government started victimizing and making out false cases against members of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar group: that petitioner No. 1 was arrested in a case under section 506/447, P. P. C. after his release on interim bail; that in the instant case, addition of offence under section 307, P. P. C. was a mala fide act on the part of the police; that no specific injury had been assigned to the petitioners; that petitioner No. I was stated to be armed with sten-gun which had no Butt and thus the F.

1. R. stood belied by this fact; that at the most it was a case of manhandling and keeping a person in confine ment 1,17 lee hours; that the offence

148. P. P. C. was bailable; that originally the ca" was registered under sections 148, 365, 506/149, P. P. C. and none of the offences was punishable with death or imprisonment for life; that peti tioner No. 1 being a member of the Bar sitting, member of the provincial Assembly, ex‑Minister and ex‑Advisor enjoyed high social status and that it was a case of political victimization; that petitioner No. 2, was servant of petitioner No. 1.

3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of State urged that it was not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail as the petitioner had commit ted several offences earlier and the Court was to safeguard the repetition of offences. He cited: Muhammad Ayub v. The State (P. L. D 1959 Kar. 37); Mohammad Iqbal v. State (P L D 1963 Lah. 279); Zia‑ul‑Hay etc. v. The State v.( P. L. J. 1973 Lah. 226), and Mrs. Rafi etc. v. The State (P L J 1973 Lah. 449) were in criteria had been face laid down for the grant of bail. 4 The seamed Counsel for the complainant also addressed the Court. He submitted that the complainant was a peaceful citizen of Pakistan arid had absolutely no connection with the existing political rivalry and wrestling going on in Punjab, which was an unfortunate state of affairs: that the petitioners failed to show that the complainant had any connection with a particular political party; that the age of the complainant was a material factor to be kept in mind because being aged nearly 68/70 years, he was not supposed to tell lie and his cid age; would also make out a case under sec tion 307, P. P. C. because a person of his age could die by the infliction of kicks and blows with the Butt of sten‑gun and rifles; that the complainant and his companions were abducted as they had Lone to the D. S. P. to give defence evidence in a case and the act of the accused indicated that there was a serious trend to suppress the evidence and if it was not stopped, no person would like to appear as a witness in this case; that the nature of the accusa tion disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail. The learned counsel for the complainant also produced copy of report No. 3 dated 20th June, 1975. made by Faiz Mohammad, an eye‑witness of this case, at Police Station, Saddar Gujat. At the time of making that report, he was accompanied by other eye‑witness named Ghulam Sarwar and it was alleged that after release on bail, they had been threatened with death by the accused. The learned counsel pointed out that it had been held by the supreme Court that anticipatory bail should not be altered to Lion‑bailable cases and that bail before arrest was a, special measure. He cited Ch. Ameer Mohammad Khan v. The State (1970 S C M R 283) and Israr Khan v. The ,State (1968 P Cr. L J 1410.).

5. In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners could not know that the complainant had gone to the D. S. P. to give defence evidence in the case lodged at the instance of petitioner: NO. 1 because according to the complainant, petitioner No. I along with others was standing in front of a fruit shop near bus stop; that the report lodged by Faiz showed that vague and flimsy attempts had been made to see that the bail was not granted to the petitioners; that the news of the present occurrence had been published in various newspapers by the Administration through Information Department in a sensational manner bringing in the name Or a Judge of the Supreme Court and Additional Sessions Judge.

5. The present case was registered promptly on the statement of Muhammad Aslam Khan, which was recorded by; Syed Iltaf Hussain Shah, S.H.O. Police Station, Saddar Ghirat, on 28th May. 1975, at about 2‑30 p.m. The complainant disclosed in his statement that on the day of occurrence before noon‑time, he accompanied by Mohammad Ashraf and Mohammad Shafi went to the office of D. S. P., Gujrat, in the car of Ch. Mohammad Shafi, which was being driven by Abdur Rehman: that on coming to know that the D. S. P. had gone on tour, they returned and on their way back, they noticed Mohammad Anwar Samma and his companions standing in front of a fruit shop; that they stopped near Kuthala railway crossing as the gate was closed and in the meantime, car of Mohammad Anwar bearing No. GT/185 stopped behind their car wherefrom Mohammad Anwar Samma accompanied by five other persons came out of the car; that Mohammad Anwar was holding a sten‑gun while his five companions had rifles; that the accused asked them to come out of the car and started hurling abuses: that he (complainant), Mohammad Ashraf, and Mohammad Shafi were forcibly were forcibly dragged out of car by the accused who stared giving fist blows and also blows with the Butts of rifles; that on receiving injuries, he fell down on the ground and thereafter, Mohammad Anwar Samma (petitioner) gave him kicks; that Abdur Rehman driver fled away; that the accused put him and Muhammad Ashraf in his car and took him to village Samma that two accused got down from the car and went on foot to village Samma; that Mohammad Anwar Samma made them sit under the trees in front of his Bungalow; then on his inquiry, Mohammad Anwar Samma (petitioner) informed that he had enmity of serious nature like murder with Mohammad Shafi whereupon he informed that he had no connection with him; that Mohammad Anwar Samma allowed him to leave the place when he inquired from him as to whether he wanted to murder him or keep him as hostage.

7. The S. H. O. noted down the injuries of the complainant under karwai police. The complainant was medically examined the same day at about 6‑00 p. m. He had eight injuries on his person. Injuries Nos. 5 and 6, which were on the left side of chest on the posterior side of lower part of left arm, were kept under observation while the rest were declared simple. All had been caused with blunt weapon. After X‑ray, the doctor declared injuries Nos. 5 and 6 as grievous in nature. Left fifth rib was found fractured. A fracture of lateral styloid process of the left fore‑arm was also noticed. Mohammad Ashraf was also medically examined. There was slight tenderness of area on the right side of back of his chest over scapular area. Abdur Rehman driver had two scratches and an abrasion on the left side of his neck. The motive for the present occurrence as disclosed by the complainant in the F. I. R. was, that the complainant and Mohammad Ashraf had gone to the police to appear in defence of Mohammad Shafi against whom a case of attempt to murder had been registered.

8. It is evident from the record that Mohammad Aslam Khan comp lainant had no concern with political rivalry between Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar and Mr. Mohammad Hanif Ramey. According to the complainant be wets caused injuries because he had gone to the D.S.P. to appear in defence of Ch. Mohammad Shafi against whom a case under section 307 P. P. C. had been registered. Petitioner No. I was the complainant of that case. It could not be denied that Mohammad Aslam Khan complainant bad been caused eight injuries out of which two were grievous in nature. One was a fracture of the left fifth rib and the other was a fracture of left fore‑arm. Originally the case was registered under sections 48, 365, and 306/149, P. P. C. Subsequently offence under section 307, P. P. C. was added. Faiz Mohammad, an eye‑witness of this case, lodged report No. 3 at the Police Station, on 20th June, 1975. He was accompanied by other eye- witness Ghulam Sarwar at that time. According to the two witnesses, they had been threatened by the accused with death in case they gave evidence in the instant case. It is provided in section 367, P. P. C. that "who ever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery or to the unnatural lust of any person, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be cable to fine." As soon as the complainant and his companions were forcibly dragged out of the car, offence of abduction had been committed. After they were dragged out of the car, the complainant was subjected to grievous hurts. Although the case had not been registered under section 367, P. P. C. nor the said offences had been added, the allegations, prima, facie, disclosed an offence under section 367, P. P. C. which falls under the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497 Cr. P. C. Leaving aside 4ences 307, 365, P. P. C. offence under section 325, P. P. C. which had been committed, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. It is also non‑bailable. Bail cannot be allowed on the ground of social status. Merits if case cannot be ignored raking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it a fit case for the grant of bail before arrest. The petition is dismissed.

9. A request has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for the suspension of this order for three days so that the petitioners could move bail petition before the Supreme Court. Since the bail petition has been dismissed, I see no ground to grant this request.

10. Copy of the order be given dasti on usual charges as asked fort,