1984 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Akram for Petitioner. Kamal Mufti for Respondent No.

1. Malik Sarfraz Hussain for the State. This is an application for cancellation of bail of respondent-accused, in a case registered under section 364/34, P. P. C. on 17th July, 1983, at the instance of the petitioner/complainant, Mst. Parveen Akhtar, alleging that her father had been abducted away on 24th June, 1983, at 6 p. m. when he had gone to the Bazar. She named her own husband Muhammad Latif, his brother Ashiq Ali and the present respondent- Ghulam Sarwar Khan, as having abducted him with an intent to take away his life. The motive alleged by her was that a house belonging to her father was forcibly occupied by the accused; that they even fabricated an agreement in regard to its sale in their favour ; and that her relations with her husband being ridden with extensive litigation it was he who could possibly benefit from the disappearance of her father.

2. The respondent was allowed bail by Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, vide his order, dated 22nd November, 1983. The petitioner sought its cancellation contending, inter alia, that respon dent as a close friend of her husband, was the principal accused and being an influential person was pulling wires to assist them in the whole case. She averred that they had maligned her in a Hudood case and having failed there due to the orders of the High Court, they became more vindictive to cause harassment to her. She claimed to have made even yet another report to the police.

3. After, all is said and done, the fact remains that the respondent was accused in the main case being a friend of the complainant's husband He had been on remind with the Police and also in jail for a couple of months. Nothing tangible was shown to have been done by him to misuse the bail. The assertion of his being an influential person and pulling wires to help the other accused, without having any personal interest in the matter was rightly assailed to be merely stereotyped. Even further report to the Police by the lady was not much significant. Although so far the abductee has not been recovered, yet the counter-version was that it was the complainant -lady who had hidden him somewhere in order to implicate the accused. The background of litigation between the spouses would speak for many things. By far the most important feature is the total absence of the respondent's personal interest in removing away the abductee or his property consisting of the impugned house. It has yet to be established if only for friendship he would go alongwith his co-accused to the extent of taking the life of an old-aged person of about 90.

4. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.