CRL.BAIL APPLN.NO.D-392 OF 2012

 

For hearing

 

For the Applicant  :    Mr.Manzoor Ahmed Junejo,                             Advocate

For the Complainant :    Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Awan,                                   Advocate

 

For the State      :    Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi,                                             Assistant Prosecutor General

 

Date of Hearing    :    15.11.2012

Date of Decision   :    15.11.2012

Present before     :    Mr.Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh and                                               Mr.Salahuddin Panhwar—JJ.

 

O R D E R

 

SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR—J.,Applicant Abdul Sattar seeks post arrest bail in Crime No. 40 of 2012 under Sections 365-A, 34 PPC & 7 Anti Terrorism Act, Police Station Pano Akil, District Sukkur.

 

2.   Facts, germane to this application are that complainant and accused Abdul Latif Chachar were partner inter se, some outstanding amount was due against the accused Abdul Latif. On 05.10.2009 complainant along with his father Ghulam Nabi, uncle Muhammad Alam and cousin Karam Ali were available on their shop. Meanwhile accused Abdul Latif, Abdul Sattar and Hadi Bux by caste Chachar came there and took away his father Ghulam Nabi on the assurance that they have to settle dispute, thereafter, father of complainant was missing. Subsequently accused Abdul Latif by planning demanded Rs.10,00,000/= for return of Ghulam Nabi, complainant arranged Rs.200,000/= and paid to Abdul Latif as ransom amount, inspite of that his father was not returned by them. Thereafter complainant lodged FIR against above named accused persons. Police investigated the case and submitted challan before Anti Terrorism Court, Sukkur.

 

2.   Accused Abdul Sattar filed post arrest bail before Anti-Terrorism Court, same was declined by order dated 07.05.2012.

 

3.   Learned counsel for applicant has inter-alia argued that FIR is delayed about two years and four months without any explanation, therefore, deliberation and consultation can not be ruled out; Abductee is yet not recovered, applicant neither received ransom nor specific allegations are leveled against him; he is entitled for bail. Learned counsel relied on 1982 S.C.M.R 84 in the case of Iqbal Vs. the State.

 

4.   Conversely Mr.Maqbool Ahmed Awan, advocate for the complainant has argued that name of the applicant transpires in the FIR, this is a heinous case and abductee is still missing.

 

5.   Mr.Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, learned APG, has vehemently oppose the bail application on the ground that during investigation, it has been surfaced that abductee has been murdered by the nominated accused persons but they are not cooperating for recovery of dead body.

 

6.   Heard parties counsel’s and perused the record.

 

7.   From perusal of record, it is manifest that applicant’s name transpires in FIR with specific allegations. Admittedly, this is a heinous case of abduction for ransom. Ransom amount has been paid to the accused persons but still the abductee is missing; and according to prosecution, during investigation it has come on record that nominated accused persons have murdered the abdcutee but they have hidden the dead body and they are not cooperating with the police in recovery of dead body.

 

8.   As far as contention of the learned counsel that there is delay of two years and four months in lodging of the F.I.R is concerned, suffice it to observe that it is now settled law that in the cases of abduction or kidnapping for ransom invariably the families are held in terror and they always try as long as hope remains alive, to get the alleged abductee released and are therefore, quite reluctant to lodge F.I.R because they fear for life of alleged abductee, thus delay is natural phenomenon.

 

8.   Regarding to the contention of applicant counsel, that specific role is not assigned to the applicant, since it is settled proposition of law that in cases for abduction, every member of the gang which abducts a person is equally and variously liable and the question whether one facilitated or not would be immaterial in case of abduction therefore in case of abduction specific role is not material consideration if the applicant is alleged to be member of a gang of abductor in any manner.

 

9.   These all circumstances, prima facie connecting the applicant in the instant case thus applicant has failed to make out his case of post arrest bail.

 

10.  Consequently, the bail is dismissed. However; trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the case without any delay.

 

 

 

J U D G E

 

 

J U D G E

 

 

Brohi