Petitioners Kamran Khan & Khurram Khan seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 218/09 dated 8.5.2009, under Section 365-A PPC, Police Station Mozang, Lahore, registered regarding abduction of complainant's brother Gulfam Ali, Advocate, by some unknown persons.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this bail before arrest petition, contends that the petitioners have falsely been involved in this case on account of mala fide of the complainant and the local police; that the petitioners are not connected with the alleged commission of the offence; that the petitioners are not nominated in the FIR and were implicated through a supplementary statement recorded after registration of the case; that as a matter of fact, both the petitioners had business relations with the brother of the alleged abductee who issued a number of cheques in favour of the petitioners which were dishonoured; that the said brother of the complainant is not traceable; that in order to pressurize the petitioners to withdraw from pursuing other cases, petitioners have been falsely involved in the instant case and mala fide of the complainant and the police is floating on the surface of the record; that the alleged abductee, in his statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, had implicated seventeen persons (including the petitioners) and out of whom, Faisal and Sohail have been declared innocent by the police; that two co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Amer Khan and Sohail have already been allowed bail before arrest by a learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court; that the alleged abductee is involved in case FIR No, 360/09 dated 7.6.2009, under Sections 324/34 PPC, Police Station A-Division, Kasur in which he has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender and that in the afore-referred circumstances, it is a fit case for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the bail petition, contends that had there been any mala fide or ill will on the part of the complainant, he could have easily named the petitioners in the FIR; that both the petitioners have specifically been named with specific allegations in the statements of the alleged abductee recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C; that two co-accused of the petitioners were allowed bail on the plea of alibi and on being found innocent during the course of investigation, so their case is distinguishable from the petitioners; that the petitioners have been found involved in the abduction of the alleged abductee during the course of investigation; that the offence is a heinous one and falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C; that the petitioners have failed to fulfill ingredients for the grant of bail before arrest; that it is not a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail as considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are altogether different and that the petitioners are not entitled to bail before arrest by this Court.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioners were not named in the FIR which shows bona fide of the complainant because had he any motive or ill-will then there were chances of naming the petitioners in the FIR. Statement of the alleged abductee recorded under Section 164 CR.P.C. is available on the record wherein he has specifically nominated the petitioners with the role of his abduction and consequent confinement coupled with the fact that the petitioners have been found guilty during the course of investigation and the offence alleged against the petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. So far as veracity of the statement of the alleged abductee, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it shall be seen by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. So far as grant of bail before arrest to two co-accused of the petitioners is concerned, we have noted that they were found innocent during the course of investigation on the plea of alibi, so, their case is distinguishable from the petitioners. In these circumstances, this Court is of the prima-facie view that the petitioners are connected with the alleged commission of the offence and are not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre- arrest bail which is meant only to save innocent from undue harassme it, humiliation and disgrace while the petitioners have failed to fulfill the above ingredients for the grant of such a relief. Even otherwise, considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are altogether different and it is not a case of bail before arrest. In this regard reference is made to tile case of Riaz Ahmad vs. The State (2009 SCM R 725), wherein, the view given by the Apex Court in the cases of Murad Khan us. Fazal Subhan (PLD 1983 SC 82) and Ziaul Hassan vs. The State (PLD 1984 SC 192), was reiterated. Further reference can be given, to the case of Nawazish Ali vs. The State (2004 SCM R 1373). Nutshell of the discussion is that this petition fails and stands dismissed.