1999 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 31st August, 1998. Vide F.I.R. No.282, dated 12‑3‑1998 lodged in Police Station, Faqir Abad, Peshawar, the petitioner has been charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 364‑A, P.P.C.

2. After having failed to procure bail from the Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar (Mr. Farhatullah Khan), the petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar (Mr. Wajahat Ali Shah) for the redress of his grievance. The Additional Sessions Judge, by his order recorded on 29‑6‑1998, dismissed his petition. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Fazal Ilahi Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner alongwith the petitioner, in custody, who, looks t be 18/19 years of age, Mr. Tehmash Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the complainant alongwith the complainant and the 4 years old abductee and Kh. Azhar Rashid learned Assistant Advocate‑General for the State.

4. It would be necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order here vide which the Additional Sessions Judge had refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in order to find out as to whether or not the Additional Sessions Judge had taken into consideration the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. for refusing bail. The relevant portion of the said order is:‑‑ "Perusal of the record would show that co‑accused Karim son of Haji Behram and Muhammad Ghani son of Abdul Halim have recorded their confessional statements before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar on 13‑5‑1998 and 16‑5‑1998, respectively, who named the petitioners Asghar Ali alias Doctor and Noor Muhammad alias Bacha for the commission of offence. Besides that Ghani‑ur‑Rehman complainant herein, vide his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 28‑4‑1998, charged the accused‑petitioner that they demanded Rs.2 lac on Telephone No.246355 and 247321 as ransom duly equipped by observatory system to the extent that matter was then reported to the local police. Likewise the pointation memo, allied recovery memo of observatory system annexed to Telephone No.246355, site plan, supports the prosecution version. It is pointed out that the offence being heinous in nature and is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Co‑petitioner Noor Muhammad alias Bacha is minor and was not present at the time of occurrence, is a question which will be seen at the time of trial and cannot be taken at bail stale. The applications are devoid of merits and are hereby rejected. File to R.R. However, the prosecution is directed to submit complete challan against the accused within on month."

5. From a plain reading of the impugned order as well as from the perusal of the relevant record. I am convinced, in my mind, that the Additional Sessions Judge has duly taken into consideration all the material facts of the case and after having done so has recorded a speaking order which, of course, is the result of proper application of mind.

6. Since the impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary, therefore, it is not liable to be interfered with. Besides, on a tentative assessment of the available record it is not, at all possible for me to come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds do exist for believing that the petitioner has not committed the offence charged with. Accordingly, I hold that the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, in refusing ball, has been exercised legally/ judiciously and is not liable to be set aside. The reasons given by the Judge for not granting ball to the petitioner are quite sufficient/convincing and I do not want to upset the impugned judgment. If an authority is needed, reliance can be placed on the case Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State reported as 1968 SCMR 1168, wherein it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court:‑‑ "The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to appeal. On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. for refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed. "

7. Accordingly, I am of the view that this bail petition is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./178/P Ball refused