2025 Y L R 713
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shuakat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
AZIZ AHMED ---Applicant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 132 of 2024, decided on 12th September, 2024.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 364- A, 365- A & 34 ---Kidnapping or
abduction for ransom, common intention---Bail, refusal of ---Accused were charged for
kidnapping the minor son of complainant for ransom ---First Information Report had
been lodged promptly without any delay---Record showed that on 12.02.2022 ransom of
Rs.2,500,000/ - was paid, whereafter the abductee was released ---Record also reflected
that on 18.05.2022, the accused- petitioner along with three others were arrested and a
separate case was registered for possession of unlicensed arms and ammunition and that on the disclosure of the accused -petitioner, the house where the abductee was kept was
pointed out by him, wherefrom the car used for abduction was also recovered---Accused -
petitioner also made disclosure with regard to the receipt and distribution of the ransom amount and got recovered Rs.650,000/ - ransom amount from his house, whereafter, the
petitioner was identified by the abductee on 25.05.2022 during the Test Identification Parade under the supervision of Judicial Magistrate ---Abductee in his statement before
the Court also involved and indentified the petitioner to be the person, who abducted him---In view of the evidence available on record, prima facie there appeared reasonable
grounds to believe that the petitioner was involved in the abduction of son of complainant for ransom ---Petitioner had failed to make out a case for grant of bail at this
stage---As far as statutory delay was concerned, record showed that the delay was not merely on the part of the prosecution, but on behalf of the petitioner as well, which on count showed that two years had not yet lapsed, thus the petitioner was not entitled for the grant of bail on statutory ground at this point of time ---Application being shorn of
merits was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 497 & 498 ---Bail ---Observations made in bail order ---Observations made in bail
order are tentative in nature, which should not influence the merits of the case at trial.
Habib -ur-Rehman Baloch and Muhammad Rashid Ayub for Applicant.
Wali Muhammad Barech for the Complainant.
Muhammad Younas Mengal, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") for the State.
Date of hearing: 5th September, 2024.
ORDER
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .--- The applicant seeks bail in case vide FIR
No.10 of 2022 registered with Police Station Satelite Town, Quetta under the offences punishable under sections 364 -A, 365 -A and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C.")
read with section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 for abduction in lieu of ransom for release of minor Hazratullah (PW- 3) aged 11 years.
2. The facts germane for disposal of the instant application are that complainant
Qudratullah (PW -1) got lodge the FIR ibid with the averments that on 23.01.2022 at about
1:45 pm his son Hazratullah (PW -3) aged 11 years was abducted in a white colour car, while
he was playing with his younger brothers Ahmedullah and Sufiyan.
The applicant filed an application for grant of bail before Special Judge, Anti -
Terrorism Court -I, Quetta ("Trial Court"), which was turned down vide order dated
30.06.2024 ("impugned order"), hence this application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contended that alleged abductee
Hazratullah (PW- 3) on 12.02.2022 came on his own, whereas his statement was recorded
after a considerable delay, which has made the case of the applicant one of further enquiry,
more particularly, when the abductee was not recovered from the custody of the applicant. He also that maintained the identification parade has not been legally conducted and that due to material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the same is unworthy of credence, thus the case of the prosecution is doubtful. Added further that the prosecution has failed to prove the ransom, therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. He argued that after lapse of more than two years, only three witness have been examined, thus on the basis of statutory ground the applicant is entitled for the concession of bail.
Conversely, learned APG and learned counsel for the complainant strenuously
opposed the arguments so put -forth by counsel for the applicant and they argued that the
statement of abductee and complainant have been recorded, whereby abductee has rightly identified the applicant as culprit in the court, endorsing the identification parade before the
Judicial Magistrate. It was also argued that deep appreciation of the evidence at a bail stage
is unwarranted and that prima facie there is overwhelming evidence on record to connect the
applicant with abduction for ransom of minor Hazratullah (PW -3). They urged that the delay
has not only been occasioned on the part of the prosecution, but on several date of hearings
adjournment was sought on behalf of applicant as well, thus on statutory grounds, the
applicant is not entitled for bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The FIR has been lodged promptly without any delay. Cursory view of the evidence
on record shows that on 12.02.2022 ransom of Rs.2,500,000/ - (Two million five hundred
thousand) was paid, whereafter the abductee was released. Record also reflects that on
18.05.2022, the appellant along Muhammad Usaman, Abdur Rauf and Gul Hassan were arrested and a separate case was registered for possession of unlicensed arms and ammunition vide FIR bearing No.72 of 2022 for contravention of section 13(b) of Arms Ordinance 1965, and that on the disclosure of the applicant, the house where the abductee was kept was pointed out by him, wherefrom the car used for abduction was also recovered. He also made disclosure with regard to the receipt and distribution of the ransom amount and got recovered Rs.650,000/ - (Six hundred fifty thousand) ransom amount from his house,
whereafter, the applicant was got identified on 25.05.2022 during the Test of Identification Parade ("TIP") under the supervision of Judicial Magistrate -IV by abductee Hazratullah
(PW -3). The abductee in his statement before the court also involved and indentified the
applicant to be the person, who abducted him.
6. In view of the evidence available on record, prima facie there appears reasonable
grounds to believe that the applicant is involved in the abduction of Hazratullah (PW -3) for
ransom; therefore, we believe that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail at this stage.
7. As far as statutory delay is concerned, we have gone through the record and the
breakups filed on behalf of the applicant, and counsel for the respondent, which shows that the delay is not merely on the part of the prosecution, but on behalf of the applicant as well, which on count shows that two years have not yet been lapsed, thus the applicant is not entitled for the grant of bail on statutory ground at this point of time, however, he is at liberty to seek bail on statutory ground before the Trial Court, whenever, he gets entitled as contemplated under clause (b) of third proviso of section 497 of Cr.P.C.
8. Corollary, the application being shorn of merits is dismissed, however, the Trial Court
is directed to swiftly conclude the trial within a period of three (3) months positively with
intimation to the Registrar of this Court.
The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, which shall not influence
the merits of the case at trial.
JK/84/Bal. Application dismissed.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.