Nisar Ahmad accused-petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.86 dated 1-11-2010 for offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Injera, District Attock on the complaint of Mehmood-ur-Rehman, who has briefly, alleged in the F.I.R. That he was informed telephonically that his brothet Aziz-ur-Rehman and another Bashir Ahmad had been abducted at gunpoint by Asmat Ullah, Lal Khan and their companions, who had been witnessed, committing the occurrence at 5-15 p.m. On 1-11-2010 by Muhammad Bashir; the complainant on this information, went towards Pir Abbas Chowk on his motorcycle and viewed themselves, the abductecs, being taken away by the above said accused; they attempted to stop the car (Registration No.6762/LWA) of the accused but in vain.
2. The above said car and motorcycle were found parked at the place of occurrence, which were taken into possession by the police through memo of recovery on 1-11-2010.
3. On a tip off, the police besieged a jungle on .21-11-2010, narrowed down the area of their action and pursuant to it, they overpowered accused Lal Khan and Asmat Ullah, who made disclosure that they could lead to the recovery of Aziz-ur-Rehman and Bashir Ahmad, the abductees. As per disclosure of the accused, a raid was conducted, by the police at another spot situated in the same jungle, as a result of which both the abductees Aziz-ur-Rehman and Bashir Ahmad were recovered with their hands and feet tied.
4. The accused Lal Khan was arrested on 21-11-2010, who led to the recovery of Rs.10,00,000 from the side pocket of his shirt and it was the ransom amount received by him from the complainant side.
A Kalashnikov was also recovered from him at the same time. Asmat Ullah accused also led to the recovery of a firearm and other articles.
5. Aziz-ur-Rehman and Bashir Ahmad were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 21-11-2010, who gave a detail of the mode of the occurrence but none of them nominated Nisar Ahmad (petitioner) as an accused of this case. Mehmood-ur-Rehman, complainant got recorded his supplementary statement on 21-11-2010, wherein he mentioned about the payment of ransom amount, Rs.10,00,000 to Lal Khan and Asmat Ullah accused.
6. Accused Lal Khan disclosed during interrogation on 23-11-2010 that he had abducted both the mentioned abductees in the company of Asmat Ullah, Sharif Khan, Babar Khan and Muhammad Fardus alias Mehmood accused by adding that they had handed over both the abductees to Nisar (petitioner) thereafter. It is how the name of the petitioner figured in this case for the first time.
7. The police took into possession Car No.865 RIA along with its documents from Abdul Majeed son of Hayat Muhammad, which had been allegedly used in the commission of crime by the accused at a later stage to shift the abductees to some other place. Aziz-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Bashir, the abductees, identified the place of their confinement as they pointed out to it during the course of investigation on 10-1-2011.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case for none of his fault and no incriminating evidence exists on record to connect him with the commission of offence; the confessional statement of Lal Khan accused before the police, can.
Hardly be read against the petitioner and barring said statement, there is no other evidence with the prosecution against the petitioner; nothing has been recovered at his instance and his involvement in this case does not proceed beyond mere suspicion; the petitioner's case calls for further inquiry into his guilt, so he may be released on bail.
Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that the statement of Lal Khan accused is very important, which connects the petitioner with the commission of the crime; the offence of abduction for ransom is always committed by a team of criminals and each one of them plays one's particular role and the petitioner's role was to shift the abductees, subsequent to the stage of their abduction, to a safer place, wherefrom both of them were, later on, recovered by the police in consequence upon a raid; the self-implicating statement of Lal accused is an incriminating piece of evidence against the petitioner as well; the petitioner and his co- accused have committed a gruesome offence, which falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, so he may not be admitted to bail.
10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that Lai Khan accused and Asmat Ullah accused, after hectic efforts of the police, were arrested on 21-11-2010 from a jungle. They were interrogated, by the I.O. And in pursuance thereof, both the abductees were recovered from another spot situated in the same jungle, wherefrom the above named accused had been arrested. Despite self-implicating statement of Lal Khan-accused, whereby, he also disclosed the name of the petitioner as their aide in the commission of the occurrence, no other incriminating circumstance exists on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime.
Neither any ransom amount has been recovered from him nor the alleged abductees were recovered at his instance. He was not found present by the police at both the above said spots, one pertaining to the arrest of accused Lal Khan etc., and the other, the place of recovery of the alleged abductees. The recovery of car at the instance of Abdul Majeed may be important in the circumstances of the case but its relevance qua the petitioner shall be best assessed by the learned trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties during trial. The abductees are the star witnesses of the occurrence and none of them has nominated the petitioner as an accused of this case. Mere heinousness of an offence cannot be considered as a ground for B declining bail to the petitioner, once we find his case falling within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
11. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.