Wahab vs State

2010 Y L R 1630

[Peshawar]

Before Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J

WAHAB---Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE and another---Respondents

Cr. Misc. B. A. No.1578 of 2009, decided on 16th November, 2009.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-A---Abduction for ransom---Bail, refusal of--- Record had revealed that alleged abductee was abducted for ransom and initially accused demanded Rs. one crore as ransom and lastly his claim was reduced to Rs.25,00,000-Nothing on the record would suggest that the complainant or the prosecution witnesses had any malice to falsely implicate accused for the commission of the offence---Specific role of demanding ransom in absence of any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the witnesses, prima facie suggested the involvement of accused in the case---Without going deep into the merits of the case, involvement of accused was very much there---Offence for which accused had been charged, fell under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was not entitled to the concession of bail---As investigation in the case was completed and challan had also been submitted before the Trial Court, Trial Court was directed to complete the trial of the case within three months.

Khan Askar Afridi for Petitioner.

Zahid Yousaf, A.A.-G. for the State.

Assadullah Chamkani for the Complainant/Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 16th November, 2009.

JUDGMENT

MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The accused petitioner charged in case F.I.R. No.369 dated 14-7-2009 registered under section 365-A, P.P.C. in Police Station Daudzai seeks his release on bail on the grounds that he was not directly charged in the F.I.R; there is no ocular evidence against the accused petitioner; the only statement of one Sajid Khan recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. after a considerable delay of about 46 days would not be sufficient to connect him in the commission of offence charged with while on the other hand, Mr. Zahid Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General assisted by Mr. Assadullah Chamkani, counsel for complainant/respondent No.2, vehemently argued that it is a case of abduction and the abductee has not yet been rescued from the clutches of the accused. They further argued that statement of one Sajid Khan recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. is avery detailed statement which is sufficient to connect the accused petitioner with the abduction of Muhammad Amjad Khan, the son of complainant, for ransom.

2.Perusal of the record reveals that the present petitioner was charged in the case on the statement of P.W. Sajid Khan recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. The record of the case further reveals that Muhammad Amjad Khan was abducted for ransom and initially the accused demanded Rs. One crore as ransom and lastly his claim was reduced to Rs.25,00,000. Nothing on the record would suggest that the complainant or the P.W. Sajid Khan had any malice to falsely implicate the accused petitioner for the commission of the offence. Specific role of demanding ransom in absence of any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the witness prima facie suggests the involvement of the accused petitioner in the case and without going deep into the merits of the case, the involvement of the accused petitioner is very much there. The offence for which the accused petitioner has been charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence is not entitled to the concession of bail.

3.As investigation in the case is complete and "Challan" has also been submitted before the trial Court, so the trial Court is directed to complete the trial of the case within a period of three months failing which the accused petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application.

Hence this petition is dismissed with the above observations.

H.B.T./78/P Bail refused.