' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after-arrest in case F.I.R. No,387 of 2007 dated 28- 9-2007 under section 365, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Seetal Mari, Tehsil and District Multan.
2. According to the F.I.R., on 14-8-2007 the complainant and her husband along with kids were present in the house. They attended the knock at the door. It was Muhammad Arshad, petitioner who offered the return of amount received by him to stamp the visa from one Muhammad Ashraf a close relative of Khalil Ahmad husband of the complainant. The Said Muhammad Arshad now the petitioner offered his accompany to the husband of the complainant. The complainant suspected the situation dispatched to her son Muhammad Adeel to follow his father, who along with one Nazar Muhammad P.W. Saw that Khalil Ahmad husband of the complainant was proceedings ahead with Muhammad Arshad accused/petitioner and that all of sudden Muhammad Anwar co- accused along with two unknown persons came there on car and by use of force they took away'
Khalil Ahmad. The son of the complainant namely Muhammad Adeel and Nazar Muhammad informed to her about the occurrence. When she approached to the accused persons they offered her the release of her husband Khalil Ahmad alleged abductee, in case she resiles from inquiry in case with F.I.A., otherwise her husband Khalil Ahmad shall be done to death. The motive behind statedly is that the accused above mentioned has grabbed amount of Rs,13,48,000 to stamp the visa for Adeel son of the complainant for America. In this connection an application was filed to the. F.I.A. Police and the accused in order to build up a pressure had abducted her husband. Her case was not registered. She approached to the Hon'ble High Court and a case was directed to be registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is in jail, whereas it was a transaction of the business concern. In connection with amount, that the complainant in order to build up a pressure has got registered a fabricated case and involved in a case to make out her case of serious nature. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred a copy of a suit filed for recovery of amount by the complainant. That the petitioner was recorded as innocent. Observing it that it - is a matter of business concern and dispute over the amount between the parties; that there is delay of 44 days in lodging the F.LR., whereas offence does not, fall within the prohibitory clause. Therefore, in view of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a matter of further inquiry.
4. Learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail with the contention that the delay is well explained. The case was registered by the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Innocence of the accused recorded by the police is without logic.
5. Heard.
6. As alleged that on 14-8-2007, the accused visited die alleged, abductee Khalil Ahmad and desired to settle the money dispute ensuring him to return the amount-received by him. He was at that the time along with two un-known persons who forcibly boarded to the alleged detenu on a car and took him who still could not be recovered. The occurrence was also witnessed by son of the petitioner and one Nazar Muhammad. The complainant had been making efforts for recovery of her husband and still is not successful. His offer to her was that the accused would return the detenu in case she resiles frftm the inquiry pending in connection with the amount taken by the accused for stamp the visa for America. The diary recorded by the police for innocence of the petitioner is based on the statement of Imam Masjid and concerned Nazim. These facts suggest that there is a dispute inter se the parties over the money outstanding and as claimed through a civil suit filed by the complainant party. The police could not recover the detenu despite the fact that he is in jail. Although the punishment provided for the offence under section 365 P.P.C. Is up to 7 years but this punishment has also been provided by the word that it may be extended to seven years. The facts as brought into notice that already a case against the petitioner was registered by the F.I.A. Separately. In the light of the situation, when petitioner remained in jail for substantial period, a civil suit is also pending inter se the parties while F.I.A. At the instance of the complainant initiated proceeding, the petitioner cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period and even no purpose of the prosecution would be served. In the circumstances bail cannot be withheld. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of r learned Sessions Judge, Multan.