1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- F.I.R. No, 133 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station, Phul on 4-6-2010 for an incident alleged to have taken place on 20-5-2010. Complainant stated that his nephew Imran Ali, deceased, aged about 16 years, used to reside with his mother as his father had expired.
2. On the material date the complainant, his nephew and a relative of the complainant went for attending a Majlis and after that, they hoarded a rickshaw. As the rickshaw neared a Police Picket, it was signaled to stop. Two Police personnel in Police uniforms, the present two applicants, got the passengers down, gave them threats and made rickshaw go back. After the rickshaw had gone back the applicants are alleged to have snatched money and mobiles and also stated that boy Imran was wanted by them and asked Complainant and his relative to go away. Complainant and his relative went away leaving Imran there Next morning, they came to Police Picket and searched for Imran but they were told that Imran had left, Imran never returned. Consequently, this F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is abnormal delay of 15 days in lodging of F.I.R. And no plausible explanation has been given. Learned counsel submitted that no motive has been alleged in the F.I.R. He submitted that even if all that is alleged in the F.I.R. Is accepted as gospel truth, no offence under section 364, P.P.C. Is made out and at best for prosecution, it could either be offence under section 342, P.P.C. Or offence under section 365, P.P.C. And both those offences are bailable. He submitted that parties are known to each other and no person from the, locality not even the rickshaw driver has been cited as a witness. Learned counsel submitted that the matter has been investigated and re-investigated and reinvestigation indicates that the case is of further inquiry. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant has been behind the bars for 18 months and, therefore, in terms of amendment brought in section 497, Cr.P.C. By the Amending Act, 2011. They are entitled to bail even on statutory ground and this, learned counsel submitted, is besides ground of merits. Learned counsel relied upon Shahzor and another v. The State, 2006 YLR 3167, Nasir Khokhan v. The State 2006 YLR 3042, Zahir Ahmed Khan v. The State, 2003 SCM R 919, Muhammad Hanif v. The State, 1996 PCr.LJ 478, Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34, Madiha Tabeen v. The State 2009 PCr.L1 82 and Muhammad Zakari and another v. The State and another 2009 PCr.LJ 389.
4. ' Learned counsel for complainant read from page 27 to 29 of inquiry report submitted by a Deputy Inspector-General of Police. It may be pointed out that a writ petition was filed at the Principal Seat and on that writ petition, inquiry was ordered by a D.I.G. And that was the inquiry report, which was being referred to by the learned counsel. In inquiry report, it was observed as under:-- "2.d. Whether Imran was murdered by the Police Constables with whom he was last seen?
5. ' The circumstantial evidence, eyewitness account of Naeem Mallah, a natural witness, and the police constables' dubious conduct subsequent to the incident incriminate them in the instant case to the extent that they' at least know as to what happened to Imran Jokhio. It was with them at Phull Regulator that Imran was last seen. They admit having seen and inquired from Imran regarding, his travelling destination on 21-5-2010. But on the next day when there was the big news of Imran Jokhio's disappearance/ abduction, surprisingly neither of them informed either of their incharge police post or the relatives of Imran about Imran's meeting with them only last night. In fact they tried to hide this fact. It was only after the eye-witness account of Naeem Mallah who first informed the family of Imran Jokhio and later stated before the local police that on 21-5-2010 at around 2030 hours, he saw Imran with two police constables at Phull Regulator Picket that this all important fact came to the fore. It was after this independent evidence the two constables admitted their meeting, with Imran. Again, surprisingly they deny and maintain in their statements from day one that they know the rickshaw driver. Neither did they ever try to find out the rickshaw driver to lend credence to their version that they did not dismount Imran from the rickshaw, rather he was dropped by the driver some one hundred feet away from them. This unconvincing post incident conduct of constables raises doubts in the minds of the committee. The Psychological Assessm ent Report of the constables inasfar as it relates to their sexual behavior is reproduced below: ' About Muhammad Ilyas the psychologist writes, "Guilt feelings about sexual activity.
6. ' Fear of attack, particularly homosexual in nature.
7. ' Major conflicts between moral values an instinctual needs".
8. ' About Ghulam Rasool, the psychologist writes, "His major fears are fear of sex and body mutilation.'
9. ' Major conflicts between moral values and primitive impulses Given the shadowy character of the constables, supported the expert opinion of psychologist coupled with their dubious conduct, the committee safely presumes that Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Ilyas do know what happened to Imran. It might well have so happened that in order to fulfil their unnatural sexual desire they might have tried to get hold of Imran who was a young, handsome and smart boy and with the intention of saving himself from being molested, Imran might have jumped in the nearby Rohri Canal."
10. ' Learned D.P.-G. Supported arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and submitted that police constables are posted to protect people and instead of protecting they have themselves committed the crime.
11. ' I have considered submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
12. As far as contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there has been an abnormal delay in lodging the F.I.R. And no plausible explanation has been furnished, suffices it to observe that law does not need any authority any more on the point that in cases of abduction of a family member, it is almost always first attempt of the family to try to locate the abducted person and to get him recovered. The families do not rush to Police Station the moment abduction takes place because that is the stage when their primary concern is recovery of abductee and not punishment of the culprits. Therefore, if 15 days' time was taken by the family and in this case neither has Imran been recovered nor his dead body found, it cannot be said that it was anything out of the usual and therefore, delay cannot be held to have created doubt.
13. ' Next contention of the learned counsel was with reference to section 364, P.P.C. The said Section is in the following words:- "S. 364, Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder: ' Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
14. ' Bare reading of section 364, P.P.C. Indicates that in order to constitute an offence under that section kidnapping or abduction must be with the objective that (a) such person may be murdered; or (b) may be so disposed of as to put him/her in danger of being murdered.
15. ' Contention of the learned counsel was that all that is narrated in the F.I.R. Was that two police constables kept the boy with them and asked the -elders to go. Abduction is defined in section, 362, P.P.C. To mean that whoever, by force, compels or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. Now, Imran was in a rickshaw which rickshaw was allegedly stopped by the present applicants and Imran was got down from rickshaw along with his uncle and a relative. As far as first aspect of compelling or inducement is concerned, a police uniform standing alone without any overt act may be sufficient to compel a person.
16. Compulsion is not necessarily a physical act: it may be by creation of such environment and circumstances that the B person is impelled to do something. Adults were asked to go and a boy was kept there. The boy has not returned. Why did the two applicants keep the boy is something that can be gone into and decided by the trial Court once evidence is recorded. Therefore, Whether there was intention to murder or otherwise dispose of the boy is something that is yet to be proved through evidence but, prima facie, disappearance of the boy for almost six months does give some indications.
17. ' Reliance by the learned counsel for applicants on Muhammad Lakaria's case (supra) where it was held that offence under section 365, P.P.C. Is compoundable, does not help his case because in the reported case brother of the complainant was made to sit in a car and was given a beating and the Police recovered the boy. In Muhammad Hanir s case (supra) the prosecution story was that real brother of the complainant was with him till about 1130 hours when he went home and next morning, his dead body was found near a road. It was alleged that a woman of lax character got murdered brother of the complainant by Mohammad Hanif and a co-accused. The case is clearly of different facts. In Madihah Jabeen's case (supra) an unmarried girl was not present at the spot at the relevant time. Even otherwise it was a case under section 395/412. PPC and is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. In Tariq Bashir's case (supra) it has been held that in bailable cases, bail is a right and refusal is an exception. It has further been held that bail cannot be refused with the objective to punish the accused person. In Zaheer Ahmed Khan's case (supra) alleged offence fell under section 324, P.P.C. Allegation was that the accused fired twice from his pistol at the complainant but he luckily survived. Again case is clearly distinguishable. Cases of Nasir Khokhan's case (supra), and Shahzor's case (supra) are for offence under section 395, P.P.C. And are, therefore, distinguishable. Investigation and re-investigation are quite indicative because the accused are Police personnel.
18. ' This brings me to the last ground, urged by learned counsel that the. Accused have been behind the bars for 18 months and they did not have a criminal record. Section 497, Cr.P.C. Was amended in April this year and statutory right of bail after passage of certain time was provided but it was also provided that if a person is hardened or dangerous criminal, then even on the statutory ground of delay, he is not to be allowed bail. A police Constable, if he commits crime while in uniform, is probably the most dangerous criminal that a society can face. When the protectors turn marauders, who can protect the citizens. When wardens become poachers, the game would certainly cease to exist. In the present case, it is alleged that two police Constables at a picket detained a boy of tenders years; made a rickshaw turn back; and made two elder persons go away and thereafter, for six longs months, nobody has seen or heard of that boy. What more act of a hardened criminal could be there than such an act and that too by police personnel.
19. Result of the above discussion is that this bail application is dismissed.
20. Bail application.