' Petitioner Punnal Khan through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,42/2011 dated 4/5-12-2010 registered at Police Station Uch Sharif, District Bahawalpur under section 365-A read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
2. Briefly the prosecution story, as narrated in the crime report by the complainant of this case is that his son namely Waqas Jameel was found missing during the intervening night of 4/5-12-2010.
During search of Waqas Jameel the complainant received a telephonic call from the abductee, who asked the complainant to arrange ransom as the accused party had kidnapped him and in this regard abductee asked the complainant to contact co-accused namely Mehboob Ahmed Bhatti. The needful was done and ultimately an amount of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand) according to the prosecution was settled which amount was .Paid by the complainant in the presence of witnesses to Mehboob Ahmed Bhatti and Rasool Bukhsh, who promised that the abductee would reach home but the needful was not done as promised even after having received ransom amount, hence this case against the petitioner and others.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that there is delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R.; subsequently the petitioner was involved on the statement of the abductee; that there is no allegation against the present petitioner regarding the abduction and demanding of ransom; the allegation against the petitioner is that he was guarding the place where the alleged abductee Waqas Jamil was placed.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the bail petition and contends that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner remained absconder for a period of one year and eight months and challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court under section 512, Cr.P.C.; that there is no reason to falsely implicate in the present case.
5. Both the parties have been heard at length and record of the case has been perused carefully by us.
6. It is an admitted position that originally the case was registered under the provisions of section 365-A, read with section 34, P.P.C. Against six accused namely Rasool Bukhsh son of Kabir Khan, Bashir Ahmed son of Kabir Khan, Liaquat Ali son of Rasool Bukhsh, Muhammad Hussain alias Hasni son of Hazoor Bukhsh, Abdul Razzaq son of Faiz Bukhsh and Mehboob Ahmed son of Hussain Bukhsh. According to the prosecution story specific role has been assigned to the said accused of the case and the name of the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. The petitioner was involved in this case on the Supplementary Statement of the abductee, who alleged that the petitioner was guarding the place where the accused party had kept the said abductee. There is no allegation levelled against the petitioner with regard to kidnapping the abductee, there is no allegation against the petitioner to the effect that either he demanded ransom or received the same, which is evident from the record that the complainant has himself paid the ransom amount of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand only) to Mehboob Ahmed and Rasool Bukhsh the other co- accused of this case. Specific role has been assigned to the six accused nominated in the F.I.R.
Even otherwise involving a person during supplementary statement creates doubt in the case of prosecution to the extent of newly added facts and newly-added accused.
7. In the light of what has been discussed above, we find that the case of the petitioner is that of further probe. The trial of this case is likely to consume reasonable period for its final verdict. So, in such circumstances, the question of evidentiary value of the supplementary statement of the complainant and that of authenticity of allegation against the petitioner will be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties and till then, the case of the petitioner is covered within subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Being one of further inquiry.
8.The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required by the prosecution for any further investigation and the detention of the petitioner for an indefinite period will not serve any useful purpose.
9.In this view of the matter, we accept this petition and allow bail to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10.Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations given in this order are tentative in nature and it will have no effect upon the merits of the case in any manner whatsoever.