' The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.588 of 2003 registered on 12-11-2003 in Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala, under sections 440, 365, 337-H(ii), 511, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by one Imran Nasar Cheema regarding the abduction of his maternal uncle Qamar Zaman by the petitioners and their co-accused who were equipped with fire-arms. After the occurrence Shafqat Najeeb informed them on telephone that Qamar Zaman was in their custody. At the time of abduction, on hearing, the cries (of the victim), the complainant alongwith Falak Zaman and Mahfooz Ahmad reached there and saw the accused going away in a Suzuki Car No.Karachi-4335. As they shouted, asking the accused to stop, the accused started firing. The complainant alleged that the accused had tried to forcibly occupy his house and had abducted his maternal uncle. Hence, he reported the matter to the Police.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. It appears from record that during the investigation the Investigation Officer could not give a definite finding about the abduction of Qamar Zaman by the accused-petitioners. However, the S.D. Present in the Court has stared that during the course of investigation it was found that Shafqat Najeeb alongwith some of his companions had indulged in firing at the spot. However, he was unable to say so concerning.Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 regarding which there was no definite finding so far as the role ascribed to them does not appear to be serious.
5. Although the allegation of abduction of Qamar Zaman, the maternal uncle of the complainant, by petitioner No.1 and his co-accused could not be proved, yet there is a clear allegation against petitioner No.1 that he alongwith some of his companions had indulged in firing at the spot. It appears that nothing favourable to petitioner No.1 had come on record. As such petitioner No.1 namely Shafqat Najeeb is not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. However, so far as petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it has been asserted that they were not actually present at the spot and that they had been falsely implicated in this case with a mala fide intention and with ulterior motives.
6. In view of what has been stated above, the bail application to the extent of petitioner No.1 is dismissed. However, it is accepted to the extent of petitioners Nos.2 and 3 namely Rukhsar Hussain alias Mithu and Waqar Ahmad and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing, fresh bail bonds in the sum F of Rs.50,000, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within seven days.