Ghulam Hussain petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 339, dated 21.09.2007, under Sections 365-A/170/171, PPC read with Section 7, ATA, 1997, registered at Police Station Thingi, District Vehari, at the instance of Abdul Rehman-complainant, who has alleged in the FIR that he alongwith his son Muhammad Naeem boarded a bus for going to their house situated in Vehari on 20.09.2007; this bus was intercepted by two cars wherein 8 unknown accused were seated; the accused had muffled their faces to conceal their identity; four of them, the external features of whom have been mentioned in the FIR, caught Muhammad Naeem off his collar and abducted him at gunpoint; on resistance shown by Muhammad Naeem-abductee, the veils of some of the accused were removed, as a result whereof, the complainant identified them as Muhammad Tanvir, Shahid Hussain, Abdul Ghaffar and Muhammad Amin; the accused made the abductee sit in Suzuki Mehran and drove him away leaving the complainant in a wretched state of mind; the complainant, later on, received a phone call from the cell phone of his son whereby one of the accused demanded from him ransom of Rs, 8 millions in a very harsh tone. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant the same day.
2. After having struck a deal with the complainant party accused Shahid and Tanvir took Muhammad Naeem-abductee with them and set off for a place where the complainant was supposedly present to make payment of ransom amount to the accused but he in an intelligent move brought with him a strong contingent of the police, which overpowered both the accused before they could retreat. The abductee, however, was recovered in the process.
3. Muhammad Naeem, the abductee, joined the investigation immediately on his recovery and got recorded his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein he gave a detailed account of his misery and torrid moments he had been through. He in his statement nominated one of the accused as Khan. The police believed that "Khan @ Abid" accused in fact represented Ghulam Hussain accused (Petitioner) and that it was his pseudonym. During investigation, accused Kamran @ Saffi admitted his guilt and made the disclosure that Khan @ Abid in fact was Ghulam Hussain accused and that both of them lived in the same village.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case through dishonest investigation by the police as the complainant and other prosecution witnesses did not name the petitioner as an accused; the circumstances warranted holding of test identification parade and by having not resorted to such exercise the implication of the petitioner in this case is highly doubtful; the petitioner did not abscond after the registration of FIR and he permanently remained in the area, he hailed from and the evidence qua the alleged abscondence of the petitioner is fake; the petitioner after having been arrested, underwent physical remand for ten days but it did not yield to collection of any incriminating evidence against him; even the abductee could not nominate the petitioner as one of the accused and he also harped on the same string by nominating one 'Khan' as an accused of this case; there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further inquiry into his guilt as prosecution is clearly short of connecting evidence against him.
5. On the other hand, learned DPG submits that Ghulam Hussain accused is the same person who was called 'Khan' by his co-accused and that it was his fake name which he used to conceal his identity; the abductee has named the petitioner in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and there may not be two opinions about the identification of the petitioner as an accused of this case; lastly submits that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence which catches the prohibition of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record. The complainant has alleged in the FIR that he alongwith his son Muhammad Naeem-abductee, after closing their medical store, sat in a bus bound for Vehari which was intercepted by 8 unknown accused, who used their cars for this purpose. The accused had veiled their faces to conceal their identity. It was the resistance shown by the alleged abductee which caused unveiling of faces of four accused and, they were identified by the complainant as the accused, nominated in the FIR.
They, however, did not include the petitioner. After having reached a deal with the complainant party, accused Shahid and Tanvir took Muhammad Naeem-abductee with them to a fixed place where the complainant was supposed to deliver them the ransom amount to the tune of Rs, 8 million, for securing release of his son Muhammad Naeem. The accused could not achieve their mission as they were raided upon and taken into custody by the police.
7. The recovery of the alleged abductee was effected two days after the registration of the FIR who in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. besides furnishing other details of the occurrence, also nominated one 'Khan @ Abid' as an accused, who was believed by the Investigating Officer to be Ghulam Hussain petitioner. We do not find any evidence, which could divulge that Ghulam Hussain petitioner was aliasly known as 'Khan' or `Abid Ali'. In attending circumstances, the safe course for prosecution was to go for the lawful exercise of holding the test identification parade of the accused/petitioner, which, for the reasons only known to the Investigating Officer, has not been resorted to. The trial Court shall assess true import of the statement of the above-said co-accused of the petitioner, during trial after recording evidence of the parties. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's case constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt within the scope of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this application and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.