2013 PLP 1176 (MLD)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Waris Ali petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 209/11, dated 14-5-2011 registered at Police Station Chobara, District Layyah in respect of an offence under section 365, P.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been roped by the complainant in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. rather it was recorded against unknown persons whereafter the petitioner has been involved in this case. The complainant and the alleged abductee got recorded their supplementary statement on 15-5-2011 wherein they have involved Khalid and Javed Iqbal and the present petitioner has not been introduced as accused at that occasion. Later on the complainant has got recorded his second supplementary statement on 7-7-2011 in which the petitioner has been involved. The alleged abductee again got recorded his third supplementary statement in which he involved Nadeem, Hassan, and Habib and all this shows that the abductee has tried to widen the net to entangle maximum person in this case with ulterior motive. Initially the challan was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism, Dera Ghazi Khan but the learned Special Judge has opined that section 365-A, P.P.C. is not attracted in this case vide order dated 3-10-2012 and challan in this case has been sent to the court of ordinary jurisdiction. The order has not been challenged by the complainant. Now the petitioner is charged under section 365, P.P.C. only. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is previous non-convict, he was arrested on 12-7-2011 and since then he is behind the bars, the investigation of this case is complete, the person of the petitioner is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that there is absolutely no malice of the complainant to falsely involve the present petitioner in this case. The petitioner was duly nominated by the complainant through supplementary statement on 7-7-2011. During the investigation the petitioner has been declared guilty by the investigating officer. The petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. He is also involved in another case of similar nature. The challan has been submitted and if the petitioner is granted bail the case of the prosecution would be prejudice.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case. This is bail after arrest, therefore, without going into deeper appreciation of evidence it is noticed that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and later on he has been involved through second supplementary statement of the complainant and the abductee on 7-7-2011. Prior to involvement of the petitioner the complainant and the alleged abductee have got recorded their statements on 15-5-2011 but both them have not involved the petitioner in this case. Even otherwise supplementary statement has got no value in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on 1995 SCMR 1350 and 2011 SCMR

161. Section 365-A, P.P.C. has already been deleted by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan and that order has not been assailed by the complainant before any forum. Now section 365, P.P.C. remains in field. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases grant of bail is rule and its refusal is an exception. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise his case for bail is made out. Similarly submission of challan is also no ground to refuse bail. Reliance is placed on 2011 SCMR

161. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict, he was arrested in this case on 12-7-2011, since then he is behind the bars, the investigation qua the petitioner is complete and his person is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

6. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MWA/W-16/L Bail granted.