' AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J.---Applicant Niaz alias Niazoo has bee challaned in Crime No,96 of 2011 registered at Police Station, Gambat for offence under sections 324, 353, 365-A, 148, 149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The bail application was moved, on behalf of the present applicant before-the trial Court but the same was turned down vide Order dated 1-10-2011.
3. The contents of prosecution case in nutshell are that on 26-4-2011 at 0600 hours, ASI-Imam Bux Ujjan Incharge PP Baharo of Police Station, Gambat lodged report stating therein that on 25-4-2011 he along with his subordinates left PP for patrolling. During patrolling the police party received spy informing that accused Bahadur alias Bajoo alias Master Narejo group and his companions along with two .Abductees will cross Wad Bughia Bridge following which, they conveyed such information to SPO Gambat and later on proceeded to the pointed place. At about 0230 hours they saw on search light 13/14 persons armed with ammunition and identified them each Bahadur alias Bajoo alias Master Narejo, Sattar Kuryo, Bachal alias Bacho alias Abdul Rehman Jodh, -Allah Bux Serohi, Nazeer Kalhoro, Imam Ali alias Shero Lashari, Mumtaz Maitlo and 3/4 unidentified persons duly armed with. Kalashnikovs. The police party disclosed their identity and directed the accused to lay down their weapons. However, the culprits started firing upon the police party. Police party also took position and started firing in their defence and that encounter continued for about 15 minutes and the accused made their escape good due to darkness. However, two persons came towards the police party and disclosed that they were abductees and on enquiry they disclosed their names to be Insaf Ali Khemtio and Awais Khemtio and they further disclosed that they were abducted on 2-4-2011 from their village for ransom and they were kept at different places. Such mashirnama of recovery of abductees was prepared in presence of the police officials and 15 empties of Kalashnikovs and 11 empties of SMG from the place of incident were also recovered. The abductees were also asked toregister a case against the accused persons but they refused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been implicated in this false case by the police. He further contended that neither the abductees were ever abducted nor such matter was reported to the police and the entire prosecution case is nothing but to brainchild of the police. He further contended that two abductees namely Insaf Ali and Awais have filed their affidavits before the trial Court exonerating the present applicant from the commission of the alleged offence. Per learned counsel the abductees have categorically stated that neither they were abducted nor recovered from the applicant nor they further stated that neither such encounter had taken place nor disclosed the name of the present applicant.
5. Conversely, learned DPG appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the name of the applicant finds place in the F.I.R. And he has been charged for a heinous offence and at this stage the affidavits filed by the abductees cannot be taken into consideration.
6. Admittedly, the name of the applicant transpires in the F.I.R. And record reveals that prior to this he, is required in number of cases including two cases of kidnapping for ransom, which reflects that the applicant is habitual offender. Besides above, the applicant has been charged for an offence which falls within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And keeping in view the prevailing law and order A situation in this area and the terror of criminals, it cannot be ascertained whether the abductees have filed their affidavits voluntarily or they have been compelled to do so as they did not appear before this Court. Since the applicant is involved in number of heinous cases, which were registered before this incident and even the learned counsel for the applicant did not allege that due to previous enmity with the police he has been involved in the case.
7. Looking to the circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the applicant does not deserve the concession of bail. Even in the case of Naseer Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 347) while dealing with the similar question i,e, impact of affidavits of witnesses at the bail stage it has been held that at the time of hearing of bail application Court is supposed to do tentative assessm ent of the material available on record, which is different from final appraisement and evaluation of evidence, which is to be done by the trial Court which has to record evidence of witnesses. A trend has developed nowadays that eye-witnesses some times take a somersault and give statements which are different from prosecution case and sometime file affidavit also at the stage of hearing of bail application of accused persons with intention of creating doubt in the case of prosecution to enable the accused to get bail. The Courts have to be careful in such cases and see that bail applications are disposed of strictly according to law on merits keeping in view the distinction between the tentative assessment and actual evaluation of evidence by the trial Court. It is the mind of the Court which is to be satisfied whereabouts turn of some of eye- witnesses in the manner stated above shakes up the whole prosecution case from the point of view of credibility of the remaining material. In that respect each case is to be decided on its own merits.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant application merits no consideration, which is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.