' Petitioner Shaukat Ali is asking for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,1 dated 2-1-2002, registered at Police Station Niddoki, District Narowal, under sections 392, 411, 412, P.P.C.
2. The complainant Muhammad Javed Hameed is the author of the FIR. And runs a Flour and Rice Mills. According to him, on 1-1-2002 at about 4-30 p.m. Munshi Muhammad Akram and driver Aamir were proceeding to Lahore in their car Toyota Corolla bearing Registration No,LXF-1003 for collecting outstanding dues. They had reached at Kot Abdullah when all of a sudden the petitioner and two unknown persons, one of whom was a driver, occupied the back seat of their car and took out their pistols. While hurling threats, they then asked to proceed further. When they reached a place called Kar Budha Dhola, they asked the driver to stop the car and when they stopped the car, they commanded the driver and the Munshi to disembark and run straight and took away their car.
It is said that in the car a sum of Rs,1,70,000 was also placed in the bout. That his servant immediately after the car had been snatched made a call to the rescue 15. The S.H.O. Of Police Station Niddoki then started chasing the accused.
3. It was said that the complainant had a dispute with one Ameer Haider of Sadhwal over a piece of land and the present petitioner Shaukat had asked him to pay a ransom. It was said that even subsequently the petitioner had been threatening the complainant alongwith his ill-repute friends.
4. It is said that after the occurrence, the petitioner continued hurling threats and started asking about the whereabouts of his children.
5. The car was subsequently recovered as an abandoned property under the provisions of section 550 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Muhammad Aamir, the complainant in this case, made a statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Wherein he narrated the facts. But later when he was removed from the service of the complainant, he went and recorded another statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. At Lahore giving altogether different facts. It was said that Muhammad Aamir had been suborned after he was removed from service. When an application for recording of his statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Was moved at Lahore, no mention was made about the previous statement recorded at Narowal. This was termed as a concealment of fact and an effort by the petitioner to tamper with the evidence.
7. Muhammad Akram, it is said, has remained steadfast to the statement against the petitioner.
8. Bail is urged on the ground that the transcript taken from Rescue 15 reflects that the name of Shaukat Ali petitioner was never mentioned and it was only stated that two persons had hijacked the car. It is further stated that there was a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. By almost a day. That a previous enmity exists inter se the parties and this has been acknowledged by the complainant in his complaint.
9. Whereas, according to the learned counsel for the complainant side, the petitioner was involved in seven criminal cases including murder cases. That he was a desperate and hardened criminal and also remained fugitive in the same cases. That although he was a Councillor of his Ilaqa but he depends on ransom for his living and has made the lives of many others as miserable. That a recovery of cash amount has also been effected from him. Although, it is said by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cash amount did not belong to the complainant. An affidavit has also been submitted to state that the petitioner was a desperate person. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that a prima facie case has been made against the petitioner and the allowing him bail would mean he other commissioner like offences because he was a hardened criminal.
10. After hearing the learned counsel from both sides, this Court is of the view that no good grounds are made. For bail of the petitioner and his bail petition is dismissed.