2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)

S.497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365

Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7

Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, act of terrorism

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Case was got registered after the delay of 33 hours, without any plausible explanation

Alleged abductee, himself appeared before the Police, after 20 days of the registration of the case and got recorded his statement, wherein he involved the co-accused persons for his abduction while accused had been implicated by assigning the role of detaining him

No evidence, except the oral assertion of prosecution witnesses regarding the demand of ransom, was available on record

Accused, remained on physical remand with the Investigating Agency, but no incriminating evidence against him could be brought on record

Accused, who, as per prosecution case, was not acquainted with the alleged abduction, had not been put to the test of identification parade during the investigation

Case of accused, definitely required further inquiry

No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind the bars for indefinite period

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 5 of the judgment] ORDER Through this petition, Waheed Arshad petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in a case bearing FIR No.105/2015, dated 7.4.2015 under Section 365, P.P.C. read with Section 7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Sheikh Faazil, District Vehari for abduction of Waqar Haider, maternal cousin of the complainant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of 33 hours in lodging the FIR and the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he has been involved through supplementary statement which was recorded by the police after 20 days of the alleged occurrence; that no identification parade was held in this case.

3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposed the petition and argued that there is no mala fide or of the complainant or the police to falsely involve the petitioner in this case.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The record shows that the case was got registered after the delay of 33 hours without any plausible explanation. After 20 days of the registration of the case, the abductee himself appeared before the police and got recorded his statement in which he involved Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Javaid and Muhammad Shahid co-accused for his abduction while the petitioner has been implicated by assigning the role of keeping him detained. No evidence except the oral assertion of PWs regarding the demand of ransom is available on record. The petitioner remained on physical remand with the investigation agency but no incriminating evidence against him could be brought on record. The petitioner who, as per prosecution case was not acquainted with the abductee has not been put to the test of identification parade during the investigation. In this view of the matter the case of the petitioner definitely requires further inquiry. After completion of investigation the petitioner has been sent to jail and no more required for investigation purpose. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. This being so, the petition in hand is allowed and Waheed Arshad, petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. HBT/W-15/L Bail granted.