Through this revision petition filed against the order of Sessions Judge Mirpur dated 28.04.2012, a prayer has been solicited to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a case was registered against the petitioner/accused under FIR No, 75/2012 dated 14.03.2012 under Section 364 APC at Police Station City Mirpur. In his verbal report, complainant Mekoil stated that he is residing in Sector F/2 Mirpur. On 12.03.2012, he was present in his but with his wife and children. At about 06 O'clock in the evening, Mr. Shah Muhammad S/o Abdul Ghani came outside the but and announced for Ghaffar S/o Muhammad Ishaq, a nephew of complainant who was residing in the same hut, to come out to meet some persons on the road who want to talk about a contract. The said Ghaffar went out of the but and joined the said Shah Muhammad up to the main road. Muhammad Ali, Eisa sons of Ibrahim, Muhammad Sharif S/o Abdul Ghani and three (03) other unknown persons were present on the main road with two (02) cars, who forced Ghaffar to sit in the car and all of them fled away in cars. It was further stated by the complainant in his report that 15/16 days before, his real niece Rani Bibi D/o Muhammad Yaqoob was kidnapped by Muhammad Ali alias Sooba S/o Ibrahim. She was recovered through efforts of community. The said persons, now have kidnapped Ghaffar on the basis of the said grief and enmity.
3. The petitioner/accused was apprehended and investigation of the case was started by the concerned police. The petitioner filed an application for bail after arrest in the Court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Mirpur, which was dismissed on 31.03.2012. The petitioner preferred an application to be released on bail before Sessions Judge Mirpur who refused to release the petitioner on bail on 28.01.2012 and maintained the order passed by the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Mirpur. Hence, this revision petition, which was filed on 07.05.2012.
4. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and Additional Advocate General for the State. Sardar Manzar Bashir Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner/accused is an innocent person and not involved in the commission of the said offence at all. The kidnapped nephew of the complainant has not been recovered from the custody of the petitioner/accused. The petitioner has been involved in the case due to prevailing enmity between the parties. The case has been registered after a delay of 46 hours and no explanation has been mentioned regarding the said delay. The petitioner's sister has got registered a case against the complainant regarding kidnapping of her daughter. Now, the complainant has got registered a case against the petitioner in counter. So, the matter becomes in the ambit of further inquiry. The said offence is not covered by prohibitory clause of Criminal Procedure Code.
The learned counsel requested to release the petitioner on bail and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments:-
1. 1988 SCM R 653
2. 1996 SCM R 76
3. 2003 SCM R 958
4. 2005 M LD 456
6. 2007 YLR 554
7. 2008 P.Cr.LJ 120
8. 2009 YLR 13
9. 2010 P.Cr.LJ 795 Mr. Arshad Mehmood Malik Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner owned the arguments advanced by Sardar Manzar Bashir Advocate and requested to release the petitioner on bail.
5. While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muzaffar Ali Zafar, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner/accused is fully involved in the commission of the said offence. The verbal report made by the complainant is a natural one and the real facts have been narrated in the report. The principal accused is Muhammad Ali who has fled away after obtaining the concession of bail before arrest. The petitioner belongs to a gang of criminals. Recovery of kidnapped nephew of complainant has to be made yet. The offence is non- bailable and covered by the prohibitory clause of Criminal Procedure Code regarding bail. So, the petitioner/accused is not entitled at all to be released on bail. The learned Additional Advocate General requested to dismiss the instant revision petition.
Mr. Raja Khalid Mehmood, the learned counsel for the complainant owned the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General and argued that the petitioner/accused is a professional criminal and involved in many cases of murder, abduction, rape and dacoity etc. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the revision petition in hand.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Additional Advocate General, I have gone through the record and the precedents referred. Prima-facie, the record reveals that the petitioner/accused has been nominated in the First Information Report and his role has been mentioned clearly in the report. It has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner/accused called Mr. Ghaffar, the nephew of the complainant out of the but and took him to main road where other accused persons were present in two (02) cars. The said Ghaffar was forcibly kidnapped and all of the accused persons fled away in two (02) cars.
7. As far the objection regarding delay in lodging FIR is concerned, the complainant has explained the cause of delay in his report, stating that due to unawareness of law and area concerned, he could not make report forthwith. The statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are in support of prosecution story. Identification and description of petitioner/accused is clear and not doubtful at all. The nephew of the complainant has not been recovered yet. Grievance and enmity between the parties is an established fact. The record reveals that the accused persons have demanded a ransom money of Rs, 6,00,000/- from the complainant on telephone. No denial has been brought on record regarding this fact on behalf of the petitioner/accused. The offence under Section 364 APC is covered by prohibitory clause of Criminal Procedure Code regarding bail.
The offence is non-bailable. The record reveals that all of the accused persons including the petitioner/accused are involved in a heinous offence. The principles laid down in the precedents referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are admitted on hands and accepted universally, but the facts of the cases of the said precedents have no conformity with the facts of the present case.
In the light of what has been stated above, the petitioner/ accused is not entitled to be released on bail at the moment. So, the instant revision petition stands dismissed.