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
2. Accused
Abdul Sattar filed post arrest bail before
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