2026 PLP 959 (MLD)

Raja Shakeel Ahmad, J.

The above titled petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/accused for grant of bail. The petitioner/accused filed bail application before the learned Sessions Judge Astore which was declined vide the order/judgment dated 24.05.2025. Being aggrieved from order/judgment dated 24.05.2025, the petitioner/accused filed the instant petition for grant of bail.

2. The short track of the case as per the FIR are that the petitioner/accused trespassed the house of complainant and tried to entice away the wife of Wajahat ullah (sister in law of complainant). Petitioner/accused was caught red handed by complainant on spot and handed over to police. On the written application submitted by the complainant the local police lodged the FIR of the instant case.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused argued that the FIR of the instant case is the result of mala fide intention of the complainant and the local police with the collusion of complainant lodged the instant FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family and law abiding citizen. The complainant alleged that the petitioner tried to kidnap/abduct the victim whereas the victim of instant case recorded her statement before Session Judge Astore, which negates the version of the complainant. The learned counsel further argued that as per story of FIR and statement of victim the sections 365-B and 511 P.P.C do not attract in the instant case. Section 457 P.P.C does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The FIR and the statement of victim mutually destruct the case against the petitioner and create serious doubts in the prosecution case. The case in hand is one of further inquiry. The investigation to the extent of petitioner has been completed and he is no more required to the police for the purpose of investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no any apprehension of absconsion of tampering with evidence nor there is any probability of repeating the same offence, if released on bail. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for release of petitioner/accused.

4. On the other hand, the learned Addl. AG and the learned counsel for complainant opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and submitted that the petitioner was caught red handed while trespass the house of complainant at night time. The local police lodged the FIR on the written application of complainant promptly, wherein motive of trespassing is disclosed that the petitioner/accused intended to The abduct/kidnap the wife of Wajahatullh. The petitioner/accused although failed to kidnap, but his intention is disclosed in the FIR. There is apprehension, if the petitioner/accused admitted to bail, he will repeat the offence again, as such he is not entitled for concession of bail. Lastly, the learned AAG and learned counsel for complainant prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. Perusal of record shows that no any abduction/kidnapping has been committed in the case in hand. Although the petitioner/accused was caught by the complainant trespassing his house, but mere presumption or intention to commit an offence does not amount to be punished under the penal sections. In such a situation, as narrated in the FIR, sections 365-B and 511 P.P.C do not attract in the instant case, while section 457 P.P.C does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.

7. Another aspect of the case is statement of Mst. Shehzadi wife of Wajahat Ullah (victim of the case) before the learned District and Sessions Judge Astore, wherein she had categorically stated that petitioner/accused did not try to abduct or entice her and contents of FIR are false and concocted. This statement of alleged victim on oath before the Court of Session Judge Astore makes the case doubtful and benefit of doubt always goes in favour of accused being favorite child of law. The investigation of the case is completed and the accused/petitioner is not required for any further investigation in the case, who is behind the bars since his arrest.

8. Considering all the above facts I had granted bail to the accused. These are the reasons for my short order dated 21/07/2025, which is reproduced hereunder: "For the reasons to be recorded later on a separate paper, this bail petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail forthwith if he is not required in any other case subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with one sound and solvent local surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Vacation Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit/Trial Court."

9. Before parting this judgment it is clarified that the above observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not have any bearing upon the pending proceedings. The trial Court may reach its own conclusions after recording evidence in the case. This Petition disposed of accordingly. File. JK/24/GB Application allowed.