Yasir alias Sheedu and Faisal Mahmood have sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 987/06 dated 12.9.2006, registered at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala in respect of offence under Section 386 PPC.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfurled in the FIR registered at the instance of Rao Sayeed Akhtar complainant is that 10 days before the occurrence, the complainant had found a letter in his c.ouityard, whereby some incognito persons had demanded an amount of Rs, 500,000/- as ransom. According to the said letter the author of the letter had asked the complainant to place said amount under a specified tree in a field of the complainant. The complainant went on to state that thereafter he received telephonic calls from a mobile phone, whereby the said demand was repeated. According to the complainant the required amount was placed at the required place but the callers failed to collect the same. The complainant further alleged that he was asked by the incognito offenders to visit Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park with the amount of Rs, 500,000/, The complainant statedly reached the specified place but the said incognito persons failed to show up. The complainant further alleged that on the next day the incognito caller asked him to visit Model Town Market for paying ransom amount to extortionists. The complainant allegedly visited the said market where extortionists reached and received an amount of Rs, 200,000/- from him. Out of six culprits, the complainant allegedly identified both the petitioners, who alongwith their companions fled away while brandishing their fire-arms weapons. On the basis of the said allegations, the FIR was registered. During the investigation, both the petitioners were arrested and sent to judicial lock-up, where after they applied for post-arrest bail, which was dismissed firstly by the learned Magistrate Section 30 and thereafter by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, vide orders dated 27.1.2007 and 28.2.2007 respectively, which compelled the petitioners to file the present application.
3. In support of this application learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are neighbourers of the complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to a dispute of civil nature, which is going on between Bashir Ahmad father of Faisal Mahmood petitioner and the complainant; that the prosecution is nothing but a cooked book; that the petitioners are as innocent as lamb; and that the petitioners, have been challaned on the basis of insufficient material and therefore they are entitled to bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioners are named in the FIR; that the offence allegedly committed by them falls within the prohibitory clause; that a recovery of Rs, 50,000/- has been effected through the respective fathers of the petitioners; that after .the submission of challan the charge has been framed and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to bail.
5. After hearing both the parties it has been straightaway noticed by me that in the FIR no date of occurrence has been mentioned. I have further noticed that while demanding ransom amount as alleged by the complainant, no reason, or background whatsoever, for doing so has been mentioned by the complainant. It has been further observed that on the one hand according to the complainant some incognito persons were making demands of ransom while concealing their identity but interestingly enough while receiving the amount, the petitioners had made no efforts to conceal their identity, or muffle their faces. The allegation of this kind, would certainly be needing further enquiry by the learned trial Court. When queried about the letter whereby initially ransom amount was demanded from the complainant, the learned DPG has candidly admitted that the same was not taken into possession by .the investigator. Similarly, the investigator had failed to take into possession the sims of the mobile phones, from which the incognito persons had made a demand of ransom from the complainant. Likewise sims of the cellphone on which the complainant allegedly received the threats of the accused had not been taken into possession by the investigator. To connect the accused, the best evidence could have been the data of both the mobile phones maintained by the respective mobile companies but it appears that the investigator had not made any effort to collect the same. Today's age is one of science and technology and the world has made a lot of progress in every walk of life. But the Investigating Officers of our country, by and large are using orthodox manners and maintaining set formulas for investigating the cases. They should be dynamic and progressive in their approach and the manner of investigation should not remain old fashioned, out dated and static.
6. The facts narrated above prima facie show that a case of further enquiry within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. has been made out in favour of the petitioners. As regards the'. recovery of some amount at the instance of the fathers of the petitioners, the same was not recovered at the instance. of the petitioners. So this fact would also be needing serious consideration of the learned trial Court at the time of trial.
7. As far as the start of the trial is concerned suffice it to hold that the bail cannot be refused to an accused only on the ground of start of trial, especially when the case of any accused becomes as that of further enquiry. After making out a case of further enquiry, the accused becomes entitled to bail as a matter of right while after the start of trial the bail is normally refused to the accused on the principle of propriety, which cannot override the right. If any case law is required on the subject; reference is made to cases of Muhammad Ismail vs. Muhammad Rafiq (PLD 1989 SC 585), Muhammad Ali alias Mama vs. State (PLJ 2004 Criminal cases 666), Muhammad Salim vs. State (PLD 1989 Lahore 233) and Munir vs. State (2002 M LD 712).
8. For what has been stated above, a case of grant of bail has been made out in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, this application is allowed subject their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/.. each (Rupees Two Lacs each) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. Before parting this order it is made clear that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and the trial Court would decide the case, without being influenced by the findings returned in this order. The learned trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial as early as possible but not beyond the period of two months from the date of receipt 'of this order.