' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Through the instant petition, the accused-petitioner, namely, Qaiser Shah seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.183 dated 31-1-2013 under section 365-A, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Hayatabad, Peshawar. He was refused bail by the learned Judge, ATC- II, Peshawar vide his order dated 12-3-2013, so he has approached this Court for his release on bail.
2. Noor-ul-Bashar, complainant has submitted a written application to the S.H.O., Police Station, Hayatabad, Peshawar on 31-1-2013 about the abduction/ kidnapping of his son Shah Mir Khan whereupon a case under section 365-A, P. P. C . Was registered against unknown person vide F.I.R.
No.183 of the said date. Subsequently, the culprits contacted the complainant on' their mobile phone and demanded ransom amount from him for the release of his son. The complainant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.16-lacs as ransom. On 16-2-2013, the culprits contacted the complainant on their mobile and asked him to put the ransom amount in front of the under construction gate situated near CNG Filling Station ahead of Ring Road, Pishtakhara Chowk, Peshawar, so the complainant and his brother Ali Bahadur went in the motorcar and took the amount rapped in a shopping bag and put the same at the said place. The accused again contacted him and asked to go to his house and his son will reach his house within two hours. After about one and half hours his son came to the house. Thereafter his son pointed out the place to the police where he was kept in an illegal confinement, thereafter police arrested the accused including the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel in support of the bail application submitted that there is no tangible and impartial evidence on record regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime; that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. And neither any incriminating recoveries have been effected from his possession nor at his pointation; that the accused is a student and his examination is scheduled to be held in the current month and that the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and reiterated that the prosecution is in possession of sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the crime; that the abductee was released on receiving Rs.16-lacs as ransom and that no case has been made out by the petitioner for further inquiry as laid down under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any release by way of granting bail.
4. Having regarded the facts and circumstances of the case, I find 'that the accused-petitioner is one of the "'accused persons involved for the abduction of Shah Mir Khan, abductee for ransom.
The statement of the abductee clearly suggests that the accused-petitioner had a clear-cut hand in the affair. The abductee has identified the accused-petitioner along with his co-accused in a proper identification parade and the ransom' amount has also been recovered from the accused- petitioner. Hence, prima facie, there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is connected with the offence charged with punishment for which falls ,.Within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And therefore, no case for the grant of bail is made out at this stage. Section 497, Cr.P.C. Is divided into two parts. One part deals with those cases which are called offences falling under prohibitory clause and the other part of section 497, Cr.P.C. Deals with those offences which do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The considerations for both clauses of cases are different from each other. It has been held by the apex Supreme Court that the bail in cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause should be granted bail as a rule and bail should be refused in an exceptional case. Thus, it is obvious from the above proposition of law that while considering bail in cases which fall under prohibitory clause, the Court has to be more vigilant and slow in granting the discretionary relief of bail. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and reasons the present case is covered by the prohibitory clause, therefore, this bail application is dismissed.
5. The observations made above, are tentative in nature and relate to the order in hand only.