Sahib Jan vs State

2012 Y L R 1684

[Peshawar]

Before Qaiser Rashid Khan, J

SAHIB JAN and another---Petitioners

versus

THE STATE and another---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Petition No.44-D of 2012, decided on 9th March, 2012.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, possession of illegal weapons---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against accused and co- accused was that they abducted the complainant on their motor cycle, which by chance slipped and co-villagers of the complainant chased the accused and co-accused and arrested both of them on the spot---Validity---Accused and co-accused had succeeded in abducting a young boy barely 17/18 years of age---Question of false implication was totally ruled out--- Recovery of pistol and knife with which the complainant was threatened was also effected from accused and co-accused---Arrest of accused and co-accused and recovery of abductee, prima-facie established their involvement in the commission of the offence, which was even otherwise of heinous and despicable nature---Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Nauman Gul for Petitioner.

Sanaullah Shamim D.A.-G. for the State.

Farooq Akhtar for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 9th March, 2012.

JUDGMENT

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Aggrieved of the orders of learned lower fora, the accused/petitioners have applied for bail to this Court in case F.I.R. No.238 dated 9-9-2011 under section 365 P.P.C./13 A.O registered at Police Station, Paroa, District, D.I.Khan.

2.Precise facts of the case are that on 9-9-2011 at 1100 hours complainant Muhammad Abid reported to the local police that on the eventful day he had gone for cutting grass in the fields near mauza Band Nokhrra. At about 9-00 a.m. suddenly one person sporting short black beard appeared, aimed pistol at him and told him not to make noise. In the meanwhile another person armed with 'Churri' appeared and both caught hold of him and told him to go with them and also slapped him. They covered his mouth and eyes with cloth and forcibly abducted him on motorcycle. On the way, the motorcycle slipped and they fell down. He uncovered his eyes and saw both the accused in injured condition. In the meanwhile, the chasing co-villagers arrived and overpowered the accused. Then the police arrived and arrested the accused, hence the ibid F.I.R. was chalked out.

3.The learned counsel for accused/ petitioners argued that the accused/ petitioners have falsely been implicated by the local police in collusion with the complainant party; that the prosecution version is in fact a cooked up story; that as alleged in the report, only the accused/ petitioners were injured after falling down from the motor cycle on which the complainant was allegedly abducted but no harm or injury was caused to the complainant; that section 365, P.P.C. is not attracted in the instant case and that the case is one of further probe and thus the accused/petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail.

4.Learned D.A.G. assisted by the learned counsel for complainant vehemently resisted

the bail petition of the accused/ petitioners and argued that the accused/ petitioners have been directly charged in the F.I.R. by the complainant, they were arrested on the spot along with motor cycle and no motive or previous enmity has been alleged by the accused/petitioners so as to falsely implicate them in the case, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.

5.Arguments heard and record perused.

6.The matter in hand is one, in which the accused/petitioners after a long chase by the co-villagers of the complainant were arrested on the spot when per chance their motor cycle on which the complainant was being abducted slipped on the way and they fell down. But for the same, they had succeeded in abducting a young lad of barely 17/18 years of age. As such the question of false implication is totally ruled out. Even the recovery of the pistol and 'Chhuri' with which the complainant was threatened were also effected from them. Their red handed arrest coupled with the recovery of abductee prima facie establish their involvement in the commission of offence which is even otherwise of heinous and despicable nature.

6.In view of the above, the instant petition being bereft of merits is dismissed. However, the 'learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

7.The observations made in this order are tentative in nature and should in no way prejudice the proceedings during the trial of the case.

M.W.A./119/P Petition dismissed.