' NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN, J.---Petitioner Qari Muhammad Ismail seeks his release on bail in case FIR No,905, dated 22-5-2015, registered under Section 365-A/ 387, P.P.C., at Police Station Faqir Abad, District Peshawar.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 23-7-2014 while report was lodged on 18-8-2014 which is an unbelievable omission on the part of father regarding abduction of his son. He maintained that actually complainant Amjad Iqbal and his brother Jamshed are involved in a huge scam of fraud, for which Jamshed, the elder brother of the complainant, has been arrested by the NAB authorities on the complaint of hundreds of affectees whose money has been plundered; that as per site plan, the occurrence took place within the sight of complainant but he did not make any effort to rescue his son; that petitioner, according to statement of the complainant under section 164, Cr.P.C., is charged for facilitating the occurrence; that a mobile set containing two Sims was recovered from the petitioner which as per CDR reveals no connection of calls with the accused party; that order of the High Court passed in W.P. No,1388- P/2015 has been misused by the complainant at different forums, hence petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant approached the SHO of concerned Police Station but no case was registered. He maintained that application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. Was filed before the Justice of Peace which was also turned down, hence the complainant was constrained to approach the High Court, and on the direction of the High Court, case was registered and is under investigation; that some of the accused are absconding and petitioner has been arrested; that rest of the accused are waiting for the fate of instant petition and they would follow the suit.
4. Learned A.A.-G. Adopted the arguments of learned counsel for complainant and opposed the grant of bail by contending that a kid of 8/9 years has been kidnapped who has not been recovered as yet.
5. Perusal of record suggests that occurrence took place on 23-7-2014 and as per FIR, the matter was reported on 18-8-2014 on which investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Was initiated, instead of registration of the case regarding kidnapping of the minor son of the complainant. When the complainant filed application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C., the SHO of the concerned Police Station filed his report that the complainant and his brother Jamshed had defrauded public at large by minting money in the name of fake company, swelling into tens of millions of Rupees and now they have charged the accused just to escape from the said charges, on which NAB has also initiated investigation. He concluded his report with the remarks that the accused are innocent. On this report, Justice of Peace dismissed the application. The complainant filed W.P. No,1388-P/2015 before this Court on which a Division Bench of this court took strong notice of the lukewarm response of the law enforcing agencies, as a result of which the FIR in question was registered.
Different progress reports during the investigation are available on record and last in line has been filed by the CCPO Office regarding latest development of investigation in which it has nowhere been opined that the case is false and the accused have falsely been implicated in the instant case. Rather it has been averred that law enforcing agency is pursuing the investigation vigorously for recovery of the abductee and arrest of the accused.
6. In view of record and investigation reports, it cannot be said that the report lodged by the complainant is false and frivolous. All the accused are directly charged in the FIR, Including the petitioner who has been assigned role of facilitating the occurrence which is no less than commission of the main crime towards criminal liability or award of punishment, if proved. At the moment, unless and until abductee is recovered, all the accused are saddled with the heinous crime of kidnapping a minor child. Arguments, advanced by learned counsel for petitioner at the bar; require deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be undertaken at bail stage. No doubt, complainant and his brother, as per record, are involved in money scandal wherein they have plundered and misappropriated huge money of public at large by cheating and defrauding them but that may not be made an excuse for commission of another crime in retaliation.
7. The delay in report has well been explained by complainant which also manifests from report of SHO before learned Justice of Peace. The main concern at the moment is recovery of the child. In view of eye-witness account of complainant who as per record, has no previous petitioner is not found entitled to the concession of bail in a case entailing capital punishment. Hence, this petition stands dismissed.