1. Having been involved in a case registered vide FIR No. 627 dated 7.4.2007 under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 readwith Sections 365- A/381- A/148/149 PPC, the accused-petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Mardan, but his application was dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2007. Now he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. Mr. Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, argued that the accused petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in the present case with mala tide intention.
3. It was argued that no identification parade with regard to accused-petitioner has been conducted in the case till date.
4. It was further argued that the occurrence took place on 29.3.2007, while the report had been lodged on 7.4.2007, after the delay of ten (10) day without any plausible explanation, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following judgments:--
(i) Syed Hashim Raza vs. The State (1987 PCr.LJ 1609) (Karachi).
(ii) Tariq vs. The State (1987 P.Cr. L.J. 972) (Lahore).
(iii) Mahboob Iqbal vs. The State (1986 P.Cr. LJ 2522) (Karachi).
5. On the other hand, Mr. Khanzada Ajmal Zeh Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the complainant, argued that the accused-petitioner is not only directly charged in the FIR but also has been mentioned in the FIR for commission of offence.
6. It was argued that as per site-plan available on file the complainant was not only kept in the house of accused-petitioner at Mardan but he was also fastened with chains in his baithak, therefore, there is no question to falsely implicate the accused-petitioner in the commission of offence.
7. It was further argued that co-accused Javed and Parvez in their confessions attributed the role to accused-petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Reliance in this regard was placed on Rahat Ali vs. The State (2001 P.Cr. LJ 98).
8. Likewise, Mr. Obaidullah Anwar, the learned Addl. AG representing the State, argued that the accused-petitioner is directly charged in the FIR by the complainant for the offence in question.
9. It was also argued that the challan in the case has been submitted before the Court on 7.5.2007, therefore, at this stage the accused-petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record.
11. Abdul Qadir complainant aged about 20/25 years is a relative and driver of one Qasim, resident of Jhagra, the owner of Taxi Motorcar No. 8673-Lahore. On 29.3.2007 he was present alongwith his motorcar in New Adda Taxi Stand at Peshawar, when early in the morning at 6.10 a.m., four (04) young men, who subsequently disclosed to be Javed, Parvez sons of Khushdil of village Bahadar Killi, Charsadda at present Koragh, Fazal Bacha and Bacha Khan residents of Gharib Abad, came to him and booked the taxi for Mardan against the fare of Rs. 600/-. When the motorcar reached at bypass crossing on Nowshera Mardan Road, out of the passengers Fazal Bacha then sitting with the driver in the front seat took out his pistol and put the barrel upon the head of the driver who due to fear stopped the motorcar. He was pushed away and Parvez one of the passengers controlled the steering wheel while the driver was made to lay on the back seat and he was also blind folded. After covering some distance, the driver was brought down and confined in a baithak by trying his feet. The accused mentioned above left the place in a motorcar while the others subsequently known as Said Rehman of Gharib Abad owner of the baithak, Khaista Rehman and his son Fayyaz, residents of Toru. Daftari alongwith Kifayat son of Jamshed started guarding the driver in the baithak' for two hours. They snatched cash amount of Rs. 4500/- and Nokia Mobile Phone Set were also taken by Said Rehman. He was also threatened by accused to make arrangement for ransom amount. Afterwards the later mentioned four (04) co-accuse moved from the baithak towards the house for consultation and Abdul Qadir taking advantage of the situation, broke the chain and rescued himself, straight away went to his village Jhagra and narrated the occurrence to his paternal uncle. Qasim contacted the accused for release of the car but they were not ready to return the motorcar without payment, hence Qasim Khan owner alongwith the driver on 7.4.2007 came to Mardan and at 19.10 hours met Fazle Wahid Khan SI in college chowk and made a report to him in the light of which he drafted the murasila and the contents whereof were incorporated into FIR mentioned above.
12. In the case in hand the accused-petitioner has been directly charged for the commission of heinous offence. The petitioner has been assigned specific role. The complainant was confined in the baithak of house of the accused-petitioner wherefrom broken pieces of iron chain with which his feet were tied, were recovered. The said recovery was witnessed by Bakhtiar son of Musa Khan, an independent witness. There was no previous enmity or ill-will to falsely charging the accused- petitioner alongwith his co-accused. There is sufficient evidence available on record to connect the accused petitioner with the commission of offence.
13. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no identification parade was held, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail has no force. It is by now settled principle that holding of identification test, though was not a requirement of law, but it was one of the methods to test the veracity of evidence of an independent eye-witness/complainant, who had an occasion to see an accused and 'claimed to identify him. Non-holding of the identification parade would not arm the accused-petitioner, to claim bail as of right.
14. Keeping in view the high/rising trend of dacoities which has made the lives- and properties of citizens unsafe, I am not inclined to release the accused-petitioner on bail. Resultantly, his bail application is dismissed.