' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Petitioners, Momin and Ahmed Shah, through instant application, seek bail in case F.I.R. No,689 dated 27-5-2012 under sections 365-A/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Police Station Pishtakhara, Peshawar. Similarly, co- accused Shah Mir has also filed a separate application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1115-P of 2012) for his release on bail. As both the petitions arise out of one and the same F.I.R., therefore, it is proposed that the connected bail application shall also stand disposed of through this single judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1089-P of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27-5-2012, complainant Kiramat Shah submitted a written report to the police wherein it was stated that his son namely Sheroz, student of F. Sc, has left the house on 7-4-2012 due to some reprimand, whose mobile phone remained active for about two weeks but thereafter the same became inactive (dead) and he is still ignorant about the whereabouts of, his son as to where he has gone. This report was incorporated .In Mad No,133 of the Daily Diary dated 27-5-2012 of Police Station Pishtakhara, District Peshawar and inquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Was initiated. On 20-7-2012, the complainant gave supplementary statement before the local police which was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And then under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein he charged the present petitioners along with others for the abduction of his son and demanding ransom amount . Of Rs,10 lacs from him. It transpires from the record that the abductee after about four months of detention succeeded to release himself from the clutches of accused, who after reaching home informed the police and his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Was recorded. He also recorded his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. On 27-8-2012 wherein besides other accused; the present petitioners too were nominated for the commission of offence.
Petitioners, after their arrest, applied for bail before the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Peshawar but their applications were turned down vide orders dated 3-8-2012. Hence they knocked the door of this Court through instant separate applications.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that accused/petitioners are closely related to the complainant party. Petitioners were afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the abductee at the time of recording his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. But no convincing factor of any apparent mala fide or ill will on part of the complainant party towards false implication of petitioners in the case was brought on file. The government has amended the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 through the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance 2009, which bars Courts from granting bail to suspected terrorists liable to death sentence, life imprisonment or 10 years imprisonment.
The prosecution has brought on record sufficient materials in the shape of record of mobile data of accused and statement of abductee under section 164, Cr.P.C, on account of which, reasonable grounds do exist to believe that accused petitioners are connected with the commission of the offences, charged with. Moreover, subsection (2) of section 21-D of the ATA, says that if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that any person accused of non-bailable offence has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for not less than 10 years, such person shall not be released on bail. The offence with which petitioners are charged carries death penalty or imprisonment for life or fourteen years rigorous imprisonment, therefore, their case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And thus this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
5. For the reasons stated above, I see no merit in these two bail applications and the same are hereby dismissed.