' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.No.486 dated 26-10-2011, under section 363, 365- A, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Narang, District Sheikhupura.
2. The prosecution case as narrated by Muhammad Aslam Bajwa (complainant) is that his paternal nephew Hassan Afzal was abducted by three motorists at about 5-45 a.m. On 25-10-2011 and taken to an unknown place; Shahzaib, who was with Hassan Afzal, returned to his house and informed him about the incident.
' The complainant rendered a supplementary statement on 6-11-2011 stating therein that accused Imran Mushtaq had visited him on the said day and admitted his guilt with the contention that he along with Seemon, Faisal (petitioner) and Bilal Butt had abducted the minor for the purpose of ransom and that he had been paid an amount of Rs.50,000 , by Faisal (petitioner) as his share of the ransom amount, paid by the complainant to the accused.
' Hassan Afzal abductee was recovered on 28-10-2011, when he was released by the accused including Kalay Khan, Mohsan, Shanoon, Banoon, Naveed and Bhola at the embankment of the canal, wherefrom he was brought back to his house by the complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 14-12-2011, whereon he was sent to judicial lock up for his test identification, which took place on 7-1-2012, during the course of which he was correctly picked up by Mushtaq Aziz, Shahzaib and Hassan Afzal (abductee). The petitioner's earlier bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No.5669/B of 2012) was disposed of vide order dated 23-5-2012 in terms that the learned trial Court was directed, at the request of his learned counsel, to conclude trial within six months.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a new development has taken place as Mohsin Javed accused has been admitted to post-arrest bail vide order dated 26-7-2012 by the learned trial Court on the basis of an affidavit of the complainant whereby he exonerated the said accused; the earlier direction regarding expeditious disposal of the trial within six months by the trial Court was obtained by another learned counsel for the petitioner, but he believes that the bail granting order in respect of Mohsin Javed has created a fresh ground in favour of the petitioner; the complainant is not serious in- conclusion of the trial as he has requested the trial Court to stop the proceedings of the trial as he had moved an application for change of investigation of this case; the complainant failed to produce any incriminating evidence against the petitioner during the course of investigation and he being in league with the police got the petitioner booked in the instant case; the test identification parade is also conspiratorial as the petitioner had been shown to the witnesses repeatedly at the police station before he was sent to judicial lock up for the said purpose.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the petitioner joined by his co-accused committed a heinous offence, which entails capital punishment; the abductee and other witnesses identified the petitioner during the course of test identification parade, held on 7-1-2012; after commencement of the trial in the light of aforesaid direction of this Court, three prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial Court seems earnestly serious to conclude the trial within the above said period of time.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that although first bail application of the petitioner was disposed of in terms that the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within six months, yet, a couple of developments have taken place subsequent thereto, which render it necessary that the instant bail application should be decided on merits. Firstly, Mohsin Javed, a co-accused of the petitioner, whose name persistently exists on record, right from the stage when the petitioner was roped in this case as an accused, has been granted post-arrest bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26-7-2012 as the complainant tendered his sworn affidavit contending therein that the elders of the locality had satisfied him about the conduct of the said accused and that he, having compounded the offence, did not intend to prosecute him further. Secondly, both the sides made a joint request for adjournment of the proceedings of the trial on 20-9-2012 as they were not satisfied with the investigation of this case. Learned counsel for the ,complainant submitted on the said occasion that the complainant side had moved an application for transfer of investigation of this case before the Additional Inspector General of Police (Investigation) Punjab, which had been accepted and investigation had been entrusted to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Crimes, Sheikhupura, camp at Lahore.
By this way, the proceedings of the trial were adjourned on the said day and P. Ws. In attendance were sent back without being examined. The test identification parade of the accused was held on 7-1-2012 during the course of which he was correctly picked up by Mushtaq Aziz, Shahzaib and Hassan Afzal (abductee). Likewise, Mohsan Javed accused, who has been granted bail by the learned trial Court, was also identified by the abductee and his co-witnesses during test identification on 12-3-2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards order dated 14-12-2011 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2197/H of 2011 filed by Muhammad Sohail Iqbal, real brother of the petitioner, which shows that a bailiff of this Court had been deputed to recover the alleged detenu, A namely, Faisal Iqbal (petitioner) from the detention of the respondent-S.H.O. The record reveals that the arrest of the petitioner was recorded by the police in this case on the same day i.e. 14-12-2011 before the bailiff could make it to the said police station. The petitioner moved an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Against the officials of Police Station Narang, District Sheikhupura on 14-12-2011 for registration of a criminal case, which ended in a direction on 18-12-2011 to the District Police Officer, Sheikhupura for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner. Even if above said record pertaining to the habeas petition and the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Is kept aside, the test identification parade was staged almost twenty three days of the arrest of the accused-petitioner. The extra-judicial confession was allegedly made by Imran Mushtaq accused and not by the petitioner. It has been held time and again by this Court as well as by the apex Court that the aforesaid circumstance constitutes the weakest type of evidence, which can be manoeuvred by the prosecution wherever direct connecting evidence does not come their way. The true import of this piece of evidence, however, shall be determined by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. The ransom amount, according to the record, was not received by the petioner from the complainant, but it was Mansoor accused, who had done so. The aforesaid circumstances render it a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner as envisaged by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. Before parting with this order, learned trial Court is directed to keep up the pace, so as to ensure conclusion of the trial within the stipulated period as set out by this Court vide order dated 23-5- 2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5669/B of 2012, without being influenced by any of the tentative observations, contained hereinabove.