2011 P Cr. L J 711
[Quetta]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 4 others ---Applicants
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 270 of 2010, decided on 11th January, 2011.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365 & 34 ---Kidnapping or abducting with intent
secretly or wrongfully to confine per son, acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention ---Bail, grant of ---Further inquiry ---F.I.R. was lodged with unexplained
delay of two days ---No specific role was assigned to the accused ---Property dispute between
the complainant and the accused made the case of accused one of further inquiry ---Names of
the eye -witnesses were not mentioned in the F.I.R. ---Alleged abductee having not been
recovered yet, prosecution story was still shrouded in mystery ---Additional Sessions Judge's
observati on that the abductee was in the custody of accused was unjustifiable and
unwarranted ---Alleged offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. ---
Investigation of the case having been completed, accused were no more required for
further investigation ---Bail could not be withheld as a punishment ---Bail was granted.
Muhammad Ilyas for Applicants.
Date of hearing: 31st November, 2010.
JUDGMENT
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J. ---By this application, prayer has been made for
release of the a pplicants on bail, involved in a case crime No.68 of 2010, under section 365
read with section 34 of the P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Surab.
Complainant Haji Muhammad Waris in his report dated 4 -10-2010 alleged that on 2 -10-2010
at about 7 -30 p.m. at Killi Surkh, Surab, the applicants came in a white colour vehicle `Surf'
and forcibly abducted his son Muhammad Akbar.
Initially, on arrest of the applicants, they moved an application for grant of bail before the
Judicial Magistrate, Surab, which was allowed by means of order dated 18 -10-2010 and,
subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalat, on the application of the complainant,
cancelled the bail vide order dated 11 -11-2010, hence this application.
I have heard the learned counsel for th e applicants and have gone through the documents
attached with the application. A tentative perusal of record shows that the F.I.R. has been
registered with inordinate and unexplained delay of two days, despite the fact that the police
station is situated at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. No specific
role has been assigned to the applicants regarding abduction of the son of the complainant.
Although the complainant has not shown the motive behind the incident, but during the
inves tigation, it has come on record that there exist some property dispute between the parties
and in such view of the matter, the applicants have been able to make out a case of further
inquiry.
As regards the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalat on the point of
jurisdiction of the Court and that the incident was seen by the eye -witnesses, suffice it to say
that the complainant has not mentioned in the F.I.R. the names of said eye -witnesses. No
other evidence has come on record to say that th e accused/applicants have demanded any
ransom from the complainant. Even otherwise, the abductee has yet not been recovered,
therefore, the real picture is still shrouded in mystery, as such, the observation of the
Additional Sessions Judge that the abduct ee is in the custody of the applicants is also not
justifiable and unwarranted. In such view of the matter, the jurisdiction of the ordinary Court
is not barred and the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge to this extent are hereby
expunged, as th e same would, obviously, prejudice the case of either party.
The offence mentioned in the F.I.R. does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497,
Cr.P.C. Investigation in the case has been completed and applicants are no more required for
further investigation or interrogation, wherefor, bail cannot be withheld as of punishment.
Thus, in view of above, without touching further merits or demerits of the case, I am inclined
to accept the application and enlarge the applicants on bail, subject to fu rnishing surety bonds
to the tune of Rs. 200,000 each and P.R. of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. The above Observations are purely of tentative in nature, hence, the trial Court shall
not influence from the instant order.
These a re the reasons of my short order dated 30 -11-2010 announced in the open Court.
A.R.K./6/Q Bail granted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.