1988 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- --S. 497--Bail--While considering bail plea of accused person, court held had to see whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused had committed alleged offence and such belief rested on accusation contained in first information report; report submitted by police under S. 173, Cr.P.C. evidence collected and recorded by police under S. 161, Cr.P.C. during investigation; evidence which prosecution proposed to examine and plea of defence, if any, raised during investigation or other special circumstances. Munir Ahmad Bhatti for Applicant. Shahid Saeed for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Ehsan Ullah and Kafayat Ullah petitioners in a case under section 364/302/201, P.P.C., registered at P.S. Badhana, District Jhang, vide F.I.R. No. 40/87 dated 30-3-1987.

2. According to the F.I.R., on 30-3-1987 at about 12-00 Noon, Shamsher, Sarfaraz and Amin alias Meena co-accused abducted Bahadur alias Bhagi (deceased) from Adda Muhammadwala. They firstly took him to Zafarabad and then to Dera of Umar Hayat situate in village Badhana. The complainant went there and came to know that the aforesaid three accused and others (not named) had removed Bahadur to Chak No. 131-North after belabouring him. The investigation further revealed that Bahadur was manhandled by the petitioners and others at Chak No. 131-North and his dead body was removed to some unknown place.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the F.I.R. that there is no evidence of their participation in the abduction of Bahadur from Adda Muhammadwala to village Badhana; that they had no motive to do away with the deceased; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from them; that although the occurrence took place on 30-3-1987 yet the so-called incriminating evidence against the petitioners was recorded for the first time on 12-4-1987; that there are only 2 independent witnesses namely Saee and Shamas who have not only sworn affidavits exonerating the petitioners from the commission of crime but also are present before this Court today to own affidavits; that the evidence collected against the petitioners is interested and not reliable; that Ehsan Ullah petitioner is a student of 3rd Year; that the petitioners produced more than 22 persons in support of their innocence; that it is a matter of record that the complainant party had motive to involve the petitioners falsely in the case; that the petitioners are in jail for the last 6 months and the challan has not been submitted so far and that the deceased was a proclaimed offender, previous convict and involved in a number of criminal cases. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., Mumtaz, Saee and Shamas P.Ws. have stated that they had seen the petitioners alongwith co-accused, giving beating to the deceased in Dera of Umar Hayat situate in village' Badhana. Umar Hayat, grandfather of the petitioners in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. claims to have seen the petitioners belabouring the deceased and thereafter removing him on a motor-cycle towards Chak No. 131-North. Shamsher, Sarang and Zulfiqar have stated in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. that they had seen the petitioners and others inflicting injuries to the deceased in Chak No. 131-North and that Muhammad Khan, driver, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Hayat P.Ws have stated in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. that they had seen the petitioners and others transporting the dead body of Bahadur deceased in a Jeep to some unknown place. There can be no two opinions that while considering bail plea of an accused person, the Court has to see whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed the alleged offence and such belief rests on accusation contained in the F.I.R., the report submitted by the police under section 173, Cr.P.C., the evidence collected and recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. during investigation; the evidence which the prosecution proposes to examine; the plea of defence, if any, raised during investigation or other special circumstances. In the instant case, I feel that in view of the evidence recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. as detailed above, it cannot be said that there are not reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners had committed the alleged offences. The police has not found the petitioners innocent. The submissions made by the learned counsel require deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case which is neither desirable nor permissible in bail matters. For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed. M . Y . H . / E-3 / L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.