ALI BAIG, J.---Petitioners/accused namely Islamullah, Ehsanullah, Jan Sher and Farooq Ahmed through the instant application filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. have sought post arrest bail in case FIR No. 52/2018 dated 08:9- 2018, registered under sections 365, 365-A and 368/34, P .P.C. at Police Stations KKH Chilas District Diamer .
2. Succinctly , allegations against the accused/petitioners as disclosed in the FIR are that the petitioners and their co-accused namely Ismail son of Gul Ahmed have abducted minor child namely Shamsullah son of Molvi Abdul Hakeem from his house situated at Talpan Chilas for ransom.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners/accused contended that the petitioners/ accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the police and complainant with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that there is (2) two days delay in lodging FIR, abduction for ransom has not been disclosed in the FIR and principal accused namely Ismail has yet not been arrested by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that except petitioner Islamullah, other petitioners/accused have not been nominated in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that no eye-witness has witnessed the occurrence and section 365-A, P.P.C. does not attract to the case of the petitioners rather sections 346 and 347, P.P.C. attract to the case of the petitioners which are bailable, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for concession of bail.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate General controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused by contending that the abductee was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate General further argued that Offences under sections 365 and 365-A fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, hence the petitioners / accused are not entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel for the complainant and Dy. Advocate Gener al further argued that trial of the petitioners/accused has commenced and case of the petitioners/ accused is fixed for framing of charge before the trial court.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. From perusal of record it reveals that absconding accused namely Ismail after abducting the minor abductee namely Shamsullah on 06-9-2018, from his house situated at Thalpand Chilas had handed over him to petitioners/accused namely Ehsanullah and petitioner Ehsanullah and his co-accused namely Jan Sher brought the abductee to Gilgit from Chilas where they handed over the abductee to the accused/petitioners namely Islam Ullah and Farooq Ahmed. The above named two accused/petitioners took the above named abductee to Damas Ghakuch District Ghizer , where the above named abductee was detained in a rented house. The abductee was abducted for ransom as father of the abductee had received huge amount of compensation of his acquired lands.
The abductee was recovered from the possession of accused/petitioners namely Islamullah and Farooq Ahmed.
Thus, the above named four accused/p etitioners are prima facie involved in abduction of minor child namely Shamsullah.
7. It is settled principle of law that in a case for abduction every member of the gang which abducts a person is equally and vicariously liable and the question whether the one caught hold of a hand or did not would be immaterial in case of abduction. Thus, in cases of abduction specific role is not prime consideration if the accused/petitioner is alleged to be member of a gang of abduction.
8. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused that there is two days delay in lodging FIR is concerned, suffice it to observe that it is now well settled law that in cases of abduction or kidnapping for ransom invariably the families are held in terror and they always try as long as hope remains alive to get the alleged abductee recovered and are, therefore, quite reluctant to go to police station because they fear for life of the alleged abductee. Therefore, delay is a natural phenomenon in such like cases. Even otherwise in the instant case the complainant had reported the matter to police regarding missing of alleged abductee on 08-9-2018.
Moreover , offence under section 365(A) falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr .P.C.
9. From tentative assessment of incriminating material/evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation it transpires that the petitioners are prima facie connected with the commission of alleged D. offence. Thus the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concessions of bail at this stage.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, this bail petition has no merit which is dismissed with the direction to the learned trial court to decide the case of accused/petitioners expeditiously , preferably within 6 months of the passing of this order . Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information and compliance. File.