' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail before arrest petition contends that the F.I.R. Is delayed one, the victim is a minor and his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has been converted into a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Which cannot be relied upon, no transaction of money has been affected, he has joined the investigation, no more required by the police for further investigation, petitioner is not a hardened criminal, he is a General Councillor of the area, he is a respectable citizen and has been involved in this case due to mala fide reasons in order to injure his reputation and it is a fit case for confirmation of the bail before arrest of the petitioner already allowed by this Court on 2-9-2005 and then extended till today.
2. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the contents of the F.I.R.
Have been supported by the other prosecution witnesses; that the victim Faiza is a star-witness of this case; that the said Faiza victim has not only given her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. But has also supported her case before the learned Magistrate; that she has appeared before this Court today to depose that against the petitioner whose version has even been supported by her mother who has also appeared before this Court today; that victim Faiza and her mother have categorically stated that the petitioner wants to ruin their family; that the petitioner is a man of desperate character and their honour and business is at stake at the hands of the petitioner/accused; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And it is not a case of bail before arrest.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Initially the case was registered under section 365, P.P.C. But later on the said offence was converted into 365-A, P.P.C. It is imperative to quote the said provision of law which reads as under:-- "365-A Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person for the purpose of extorting from the person kidnapped or abducted, or from any person interested in the person kidnapped or abduction, any property, whether movable or immovable, or valuable security, or to compel any person to comply with any other demand, whether in cash or otherwise, for obtaining release of the person kidnapped or abducted, shall be punished with (death or) and shall also be liable to forfeiture of property."
5. According to the allegation contained in the F.I.R., minor girl Faiza, aged 14 years, was abducted by the petitioner in order to get ransom amounting to Rs,25,00,000. Petitioner has not approached the learned Court of Sessions in the first instance. This bail before arrest petition was directly filed before this Court and the petitioner was allowed ad-interim pre-arrest bail on 2-9-2005 and notice was issued for 9-9-2005. It was argued before me by the learned counsel for both the parties that the offence has been compromised with the complainant. Although the offence is non- compoundable, yet, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, I thought it necessary to know the stand of the victim and her mother and summoned both the ladies. Victim Faiza and her mother, who are present in Court in person, have categorically stated that the petitioner wants to ruin their family, he is a man of desperate character and their honour and business is at stake at the hands of the petitioner/accused. Faiza's mother has prayed that they be saved from his clutches and he be awarded maximum punishment. Both of them have fully implicated the petitioner, by pointing out towards him in Court, by saying that it was the petitioner who had abducted the victim Faiza for ransom. So far as prayer of the ladies for awarding punishment to the petitioner is concerned, it is for the learned trial Court to convict or acquit an accused after recording evidence of both the parties. As far as bail before arrest petition is concerned, I note that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., he is the only main accused in this case, he has fully been implicated not only by the victim but also by her mother and other prosecution witnesses. The ingredients of the bail before arrest petition are very much lacking in this case. Although considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are altogether different yet, according to my view, it is even not a case of bail after arrest. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is a General Councillor in the area and belongs to a respectable family is no ground to grant him bail before arrest because everybody is equal before the law. This is in line with the law laid down by this Court in Sakhawat Ali v. Khalid Mahmood and 7 others PLD 1994 Lah. 377, wherein at page 382, a learned Judge of this Court, observed as under:-- "... Law does not make any distinction on the basis of caste, creed, colour or status of citizens and treats them equally. Even a street-hawker or a labourer who earns his livelihood through honest work is highly respectable. Pre-arrest bail is not the privilege or prerogative of the high officials, politicians, landlords, businessm en or other persons enjoying wordly status or positions..."
6. Even otherwise, the offence is serious one and ingredients of the pre-arrest bail are missing. This is in line with the law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in Muhammad Irshad and others v. Amanat Ali and another 2004 SCMR 1375, wherein, while upholding order of pre-arrest bail cancellation of the accused therein, at page 1377, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, observed as under:-- ' Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioners are of serious in nature. In our considered view, they are not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail. The criterion for grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused person is quite different to that after arrest. The learned High Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction after scanning the record. The impugned order is neither perverse, nor capricious nor arbitrary, which does not call for interference by this Court."
7. In the afore-referred circumstances and respectfully following the dictum laid down by the superior Courts, this Court is of the prima facie, view that the petitioner is connected with the commission of offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And is not entitled the relief sought. Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.