2002 PLP 739 (MLD)

Dost Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. Ghulam Hur Khan Baloch for the State. Faridullah Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 30th October, 2000. This is a bail application on behalf of accused/petitioner Gulom Khan. According to the F.I.R. No.68, dated 5-4-2000, complainant Gulbahar Din, who is Tractor Driver, is working/supplying Bajri near Bridge at Kurram River. On 5-4-2000 at 10-00 a.m. Jehanzeb Khan and son of his uncle came to the complainant on motorcycle and told him that their motorcycle needs repair. On this, the complainant surrendered his tractor to his brother and proceeded with said Jehanzeb and one another on motorcycle No.KB-5929, to the shop of Mechanic for repair. When they were crossing the Bazar of Sikandar Khel Bala, on the main road, three persons appeared and stopped them. They caught hold of Jehanzeb and the son of his uncle and dragged them to the nearby field. The complainant fell down in a ditch and was saved. The two persons were taken by the accused to some unknown destination leaving the motorcycle on the spot. The complainant rushed to"his village and informed the villagers regarding the occurrence and the villagers got out for the hunt of the accused. In the meantime the police was also informed. After some time the present accused was arrested. He applied for bail to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bannu. His application was rejected. Thereafter, he applied for bail to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Bannu and on 26-7-2000, his bail application was rejected and now he has tapped the door of this Court on the ground that his name is Gulom Khan and not Changoo as mentioned by the abductees in their statements. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the abductee and their companion have made major statements and have made sufficient improvements the accused has got no nick-name and according to the learned counsel, the prosecution itself is not sure about the correct nature of offence and the prosecution has not applied section 365-A, P.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record thoroughly. 3 Although the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged wherein five persons have been charged by the complainant. The complainant and his other companions in their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. have identified the present accused/petitioner and they have also identified him in the identification parade.

4. Without going deeply into the merits of the case as this-is a bail R stage, admittedly, the prosecution has not applied section 365-A, P.P.C. and instead in the final challan only sections 365/347, P.P.C. have been inserted. The offences under these sections of law do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, CT.P.C. Thus, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.one lac, with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./434/P Bail granted.