1986 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Petitioner. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. This is an application for bail for Muhammad Ibrahim, who is being tried for the offence punishable under section 364/3441215, P.P.C. and 13‑D of Arms Ordinance.

2. The case of prosecution as per F.I.R. lodged by Tagio on 9‑6‑1985 at police Station, Kazi Ahmed is that about one month back his son Muhammad Yousif aged about 15 years went to graze cattle at Katcha side in the forest, and at about 3.00 a.m. Gahno Junejo came and informed that his son was kidnapped by six dacoits. On getting this information Tagio took Holy Qur'an and went in forest where he found his son Muhammad Yousif with Sultan, Saleh and two Brohis who were with guns and rifles sitting under the tree. He showed them Holy Qur'an and requested them to release his son on which Sultan and others asked him to pay Rs.3,00,000 (three lacs) and in case of default he can take dead body of his son from the forest. He paid Rs.1,000 to Sultan, for the remaining he promised to bring within eight days. Ultimately he paid Rs.36,000 to Sultan and others and got his son released. His son told, him that he was kidnapped from forest by Sultan, Ali Dost, Saleh, Khamiso, Mahboob and Ibrahim who were armed with rifles and guns. They took him across the river. On the next day there came Ishaque who told Sultan and others to accept full amount for the release of the boy otherwise the boy should be killed. Tagio went and informed Sardar Jam Tamachi who directed him too lodge the report.

3. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo argued that there is delay of one month in lodging the report and there is no other evidence against the applicant except word of Muhammad Yousif. He further submitted that co‑accused Ishaque who went and asked dacoits to kill the boy has been granted bail before arrest by the Sessions Judge. He submits that there is enmity between the complainant and accused has given reference of Criminal Revision No. 121 of 1978.

4. Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, learned Additional Advocate‑General has opposed the bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of abduction against the applicant.

5. The case is that a boy of 15 years Muhammad Yousif was kidnapped from the forest and he in his 161, Cr.P.C. and 164, Cr.P.C. statements has fully implicated the applicant; Ibrahim and stated that he was one of the dacoits who forcibly took him, and after they crossed the river, the applicant went away. The delay is fully explained. In these circumstances had the complainant lodged the report, earlier the boy might have been murdered. So far enmity is concerned this point could be considered at the trial stage when witnesses are subjected to cross examination. The evidence has not been recorded. So far case of Ishaque is concerned there is no direct evidence 'of abduction against him and the case of present applicant, is distinguishable. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that applicant is not guilty of offence punishable with imprisonment of life. Application having no merits is dismissed M. Y. H. Bail refused.