' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,802 of 2006, dated 30-6-2006 for offence under section 364, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shandara, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with hisbrother is alleged to have abducted Abdul Majeed the brother of the complainant on account of a criminal case lodged by the abductee against the brother of the present petitioner namely Muhammad Saleem.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a delay of 4 days in loding of the F.I.R. Which has not been explained; that the petitioner was innocent who had been falsely involved in the case on account of mala fides of the complainant and that the abductee made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate wherein he had exonerated the petitioner and others from the case.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. And specific role of abducting Abdul Majeed had been ascribed to him; that the motive for abduction was very much clear as the said abductee had lodged a case F.I.R. No,146 at Police Station Shandara against the petitioner's brother and others; that the petitioner was forced to appear before the learned Magistrate in order to make a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 4-7-2006. However, Abdul Majeed appeared before the police officer on 3-8-2006 after his release and made a detailed statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Giving details of the places where he had been kept by the petitioner and others and also regarding the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Made by him under threat and coercion. Further contended that the petitioner had absented himself from the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge date fixed for confirmation of his bail and had thus misused the concession granted by the learned Court and further that the petitioner did not join the investigation at any stage. Also maintained that no mala fides has been shown by the petitioner against the complainant or the police for his false involvement in the case and that since the offence under section 364, P.P.C. Is punishable with life or 10 years, as such the same was hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Abdul Majeed the abductee filed case F.I.R. No,146 against the brother of the petitioner and others which is the motive for his abduction in the instant case. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role of abducting Abdul Majeed has been ascribed to him. The petitioner twice applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, and on both the occasions the petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner has been misusing the concession of adinterim pre-arrest bail granted by the learned Court. During the time the petitioner was on ad interim bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and also by this Court the petitioner did not join the investigation, no specific mala fides of the complainant or the police had been pointed out by the petitioner regarding his false involvement in the case. The abductee was abducted on 26-6-2006 and remained with the accused till his release on 3-8-2006. The statement made under section 164, Cr.P.C. Referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner was made on 4-7-2006 i,e, during A the period the abductee was confined by the petitioner and others. On 3-8-2006 the abductee for the first time appeared before the Investigating Officer and got his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. In which he gave details regarding his abduction, the places where he had been kept in illegal confinement by the petitioner and others and also regarding the statement made by him before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 4-7-2006. The record shows that prima facie there is ample evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence of abduction of Abdul Majeed, the brother of the complainant.
7. Resultantly this petition being without merit is dismissed.