Pinda Khan vs State

2014 M L D 14

[Peshawar]

Before Abdul Latif Khan, J

PAINDA KHAN---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and another---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No.131 of 2013, decided on 3rd June, 2013.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A, 148 & 149---Abduction for ransom, rioting--- Bail, refusal of---Role attributed to accused was altogether different from acquitted accused--- Acquittal of co-accused was not relevant for the purpose of grant of bail to accused---Accused, in the present case, remained absconder for a period of three years, waiting for the acquittal of those who had minor role in the episode and came into the picture after their acquittal in order to get benefit of the same---Accused being prima facie connected with the offence, was not entitled to the concession of bail---Bail petition being without any merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Sanaullah Khan Gandapur for Petitioner.

Khan Wali Khan Mahsud, Add. A.G. and Saleemullah Khan Ranazai for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2013.

JUDGMENT

ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Having failed to get the concession of bail from the courts below, the accused/petitioner namely, Painda Khan has filed the instant petition for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.61 dated 31-5-2010 registered under sections 365-A/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Yarik, District D.I.Khan.

2.The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant Ajab Khan are that on 11-4-2010 at 1630 hours, near CRBC bridge, the accused/petitioner along with his co-accused abducted Gulab Khan, father of the complainant for ransom.

3.Mr. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely charged. He added that the petitioner is not directly charged in the F.I.R. He argued that though the abductee Gulab Khan charged the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the Illaqa Magistrate, but the said statement has got no evidentiary value as not cross-examined by the defence. He contended that the abscondence of the petitioner would not be a hurdle in his way to get the concession of bail. He added that investigation in the case is already complete and the petitioner is not required for further investigation. He contended that co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted in the offence.

4.As against that, the learned A.A.G. assisted by Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the role of the acquitted accused is different as compared to the role attributed to the accused/petitioner. He argued that the abductee, Gulab Khan, after his release, attributed specific role to the accused/petitioner in his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. by identifying him while he was driving the car in the company of two others. He contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail as the offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5.I gave my anxious thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6.Though the accused/petitioner has not been charged in the F.I.R. which is but natural for the reason that the abductee was not present at the time of registration of case and the complainant had not witnessed the occurrence and informed the police about the occurrence in a natural way without charging anyone, but it was on the release of the abductee, Gulab Khan, who disclosed in his statement about the presence of three persons in the car, in which he was boarded for abduction and the said car was being driven by the accused/petitioner, Painda Khan. He further added in his statement that the accused had threatened his cousin telephonically one year ago and demanded ransom amount and in case of failure, threatened him with dire consequences. He further stated that the ransom amount demanded was in crores but lastly a sum of Rs.16,00,000 was paid to the accused by his son and thereafter he was released on the third day of the payment of ransom money. He specifically charged all the three accused namely, Wali Khan, Painda Khan, accused/petitioner, and Farooq along with their companions and as such, the plea that the petitioner was not charged in the F.I.R. does not stand to reason.

7.So far as the acquittal of co-accused namely Amanullah, Sarwar and Mad Khel by the trial Court is concerned, that is not relevant for the purpose of grant of bail in the instant petition for the reason that the role attributed to the petitioner is altogether different from the acquitted

accused. In addition to this, the accused/petitioner remained absconder for a period of three years, waiting for the acquittal of those who had minor role in the episode and came in picture after their acquittal in order to get benefit of the same judgment, against the established principles of law. Such being the case, the accused/petitioner is prima facie connected with the offence and is not entitled to the concession of bail.

8.For the reasons mentioned above, the instant bail petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.

HBT/371/P Bail refused.