1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Applicant Raees alias Pinjo Khan and Bashir through this applicant seek bail in Crime No,3 of 2006 of Police Station Hamal registered for an offence under section 364, P.P.C.
2. ' Facts as per F.I.R. Appears to be that on 8-3-2006 at 2200 hours Sher Khan lodged report that 4/5 days ago daughter of Mumtaz son of Ali Muhammad Chaliani was abducted by one Sanwal Bangulani and F.I.R. Of such incident was lodged. It was asserted that he has a shop near Nasoor Shakh on Hamel Road, where his son was carrying the business. On 7-3-2006 at about 9-00 a.m.
3. He along with his son Zamir Hussain and nephew Bashir Ahmed, Sardar Ali and Qaiser Khan were present, when Ali Raza, Zulfiqar, Sikandar, Pinjo Khan, Mumtaz, Sartaj, Ayaz, Bashir, came and requested Zamir Hussain to accompany them in order to search Sanwal Bangulani and therefore, Zamir Hussain accompanied them. The complainant on the same day along with his nephew Bashir Ahmed, Sardar Ali and brother Qaisar Khan went to village Hurkot where one Maqsood upon inquiry told that Ali Raza and other along with Zamir Hussain have gone in search of Sanwal Bangulani. The complainant thereafter narrated the facts to his nekmard thereafter he accompanied the complainant and met with Rais alias Pinjo Khan and inquired about Zamir who told that he does not know anything about him. Therefore, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. And alleged that, the aforesaid accused persons with the intention to kill Zamir Hussain on the pretext of searching Sanwal Bangulani have taken him away.
4. ' Bail plea of the present applicant did not find favour with the learned Session Judge, Kamber Shandadkot who was pleased to reject the same vide order dated 22-4-2006.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record copy of Crime No,18 of 2006 of P.S. Warrah District Kamber Shandadkot registered almost 29 hours prior to the present F.I.R. Which reflects the Noor Hussain S/o Mumtaz Ali on 7-3-2006 at about 11-30 hours lodged a report with the said police station stating therein that on 7-3-2006 at 0230 hours his sister Mst.- Anwar Khatoon aged about 17/18 years was abducted from her house in the presence of complainant, his father Mumtaz Ali and brother Niaz Ali, by Bashir Ahmed S/o Sher Khan, Sanwal, Zamir S/o Sher Khan, Ghous Bux, Deedar Ali, Allah Dino S/o Sher Khan and Sher Khan, all armed with deadly weapons, therefore, there was no occasion for Zamir Hussain who was accused of abducting the niece of applicant No,1 to accompany the present applicants. It was contended that there is delay of 37 hours in lodging the F.I.R. And no plausible explanation has been offered. It was further contended that this crime is a counterblast to Crime No,18 of 2006 where the alleged abductee Zamir Hussain and his father Sher Khan the complainant both were accused for abducting the daughter of Mumtaz i.e, brother of applicant Rais alias Pinjo Khan. It was asserted that entire family of the applicant No,1 has been involved falsely in the present crime and till date the alleged "abductee Zamir Hussain has not been traced out and the present case admittedly is one based on enmity, rivalry, grudge and therefore, chances of false implication cannot be ruled out.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Zahid Hussain Chandio, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has opposed, the grant of bail on the ground that till date the abductee Zamir Hussain has not been recovered and further that the entire family members of the abductee have been involved in Crime No,18- of 2006 which according to him is counterblast of Crime No,3 of 2006 for the alleged abduction of Mst. Anwar Khatoon however, the date and time given on both the crime number does not support such plea.
7. ' On the other hand, Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Abbasi, learned Asstt: A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State has conceded to the grant of bail.
8. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the record as placed before me. The perusal of F.I.R., in Crime No,18 of 2006 reflects that the niece of applicant No,1 was allegedly abducted by the complainant Sher Khan and his sons including Zamir Hussain on 7-3-2006 at 0230 hours and such report was lodged in the morning at 1130 hours therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that in such circumstances it cannot be accepted that Zamir Hussain would accompany the applicants, carries weight. Even otherwise the case against the present applicant at the most could be they were lastly seen with the abductee and since the very narration of the F.I.R. Reflects that the alleged abductee voluntarily accompanied the applicant therefore, it cannot be said without further enquiry that they abductee Zair Hussain. As to the allegation of the F.I.R., that applicants/accused have taken Zamir Hussain fraudulently with intention to kill, in my view is just an opinion/ apprehension of the complainant which he has formed almost after 37 hours of the incident, in the circumstances, I am of the considered view that it is a case of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And am therefore, inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,300,000 each and P.R.
9. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.