' This is second bail application filed by the petitioner as the earlier was dismissed having been withdrawn vide order dated 11-9-2012.
2. Petitioner Muhammad Sajid son of Muhammad Hashim seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 359 of 2012 dated 30-5-2012 registered at Police Station Cantt., District Bahawalpur under section 365-A, P.P.C.
3. Briefly the prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R. By the complainant of this case is that the petitioner and other co-accused of this case had abducted/ kidnapped Muhammad Naveed the grandson of the complainant for ransom and after having kidnapped the said abductee initially demanded an amount of. Rs.50,00,000 (rupees fifty lac only) and thereafter, certain negotiations took place and the said amount was reduced to Rs.32,00,000 (rupees thirty-two lac only) which amount was paid by the complainant of this case in the presence of witnesses to the accused party.
4. 'The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has no nexuses with any telephone allegedly used for the offence; that the petitioner remained fifteen days in physical remand and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 1-6-2012. Lastly adds that it is the case where the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the prosecution has no evidence against him, therefore, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further probe.
5. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant who have strongly opposed the bail petition. Contends that although the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. But he has specifically been nominated at the time of recovery. Further adds that the petitioner was present at the time and place of recovery of abductee where the abductee was kept. Further adds that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; that there is ample evidence available against the petitioner which connect him in the commission of crime alleged against him; that the abductee has no reason whatsoever to falsely involve the petitioner in this F.I.R.; that the statements of Jaffar and Sabir have been recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Which fully implicate the petitioner and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence and next date of hearing is 1-6-2013.
6. Both the parties have been heard at length and record of the case has been perused carefully by us.
7. Though the petitioner was not named In the F.I.R. But on 1-6-2012, when the abductee namely Muhammad Naveed was recovered, he made a statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Before the police in which he nominated the petitioner specifically by name. In support of the prosecution story the petitioner was arrested from the place where the other co-accused and the petitioner had detained the abductee and during the said process 12-bore gun was also recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that a car used for the commission of the said offence, which was got from Rent. A.Car company in the name of the petitioner. Apart from the said P. Ws. Namely Hafiz Ghulam Qadir, Ch. Muhammad Jaffar and Muhammad Saddiq in their statements before the police while supporting the prosecution story involved the petitioner with the commission of the offence levelled against him. The offence of abduction/kidnapping falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause. Moreover, it has been brought to our notice that the trial of this case is in progress and in which charge has been framed and is fixed for evidence of the prosecution side.
8. In the light of what has been discussed above there are reasons to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence levelled against him as the whole prosecution evidence oral as well as documentary is against the petitioner, therefore, we find that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail in this case at this stage and is hereby dismissed accordingly.
9. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the reasons given in this order are tentative in nature and it will have no effect upon the merits of the case in accordance with law.