JAHANZEB KHAN, J. Consequent upon refusal of concession of bail to the accused/petitioner namely Azam son of Yusaf, by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, vide order dated 20-02-2024 passed in B.A No.57/2024, the accused/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the petition in hand under section 497 Cr.P.C for relief of post arrest bail in case FIR No.10/2024 registered at Police Station Danyore, Gilgit.
2. Brief story of prosecution as elucidated in the FIR is that: "On 20-01-2024 at night the, the complainant got registered the case FIR No. 10/2024 at Police Station Danyore under section 364-A, P.P.C with allegations that the accused/petitioner namely Farid son of the accused/petitioner has kidnaped his minor daughter."
3. Initially, the accused/petitioner filed a Bail Application bearing No.57/2024 under the section 497, Cr.P.C before the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit, after hearing contentions of both the parties.
Feeling aggrieved from the said order the accused/petitioner has preferred this petition seeking his post arrest bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused Mr. Arif Nazir advocate argued that the accused/petitioner is innocent and the FIR has been lodged against the accused/petitioner malafidely to implicate him in the instant case as there is no independent and convincing evidence available on record to connect the petitioner/accused with the commission of offences mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submitted that the present accused/petitioner is neither directly nominated in the FIR nor has any connection with the alleged allegations and the local police has apprehended the present accused/petitioner for the only reason that the present accused/petitioner is the father of one Farid, who has been directly nominated in the FIR. Learned counsel argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit is illegal and against the mandate of law, as the learned Sessions Judge has only relied upon the statement of one PW namely Latif and has ignored all the material facts available on the record. He further submitted that accused/petitioner is not a habitual offender and has no criminal history and if the petitioner is granted bail, the accused/petitioner is ready to furnish solvent sureties to the satisfaction of this Court. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner/accused, will never abuse or misuse the bail facility if this Honourable Court will release him on bail by accepting this petition. With these submissions he prayed for acceptance of the instant petition.
5. Conversely, learned Addl. AG Malik Sherbaz Khan for the State and learned counsel for the complainant M/s Zahid Ali Baig and Muhammad Wazir Khan advocates controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner and contended that offence under section 364-A, PP is non-bailable and entails death punishment/imprisonment for 14 years, which falls within' the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. They further submitted that the statements of PWs corroborate the version of the prosecution and connect the accused/petitioner with the alleged offence as mentioned in the FIR. With these submissions, they prayed for dismissal of this bail petition to meet the ends of justice.
6. I have hearkened the arguments pro-et-contra advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with due care and perused the available record and deliberated.
7. Tentative assessm ent of the record transpires that the present accused/petitioner is neither directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him. No incriminating evidence is available or collected against the present accused/petitioner during course of investigation nor witnesses had deposed against him. Sufficient material is not available to substantiate commission of crime against the petitioner/accused. Case set up by the prosecution against the petitioner/accused does not appeal to common sense. It appears that the accused/petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case for commission of alleged offence which prima facie does not attract against the present accused/petitioner From the perusal of the prosecution record, it is evident that the complainant party made an unsuccessful attempt to widen the net to involve, implicate or drag maximum family members of the nominated accused mentioned in the FIR with mala fide intentions in the case in hand. Undoubtedly, the offence under section 364-A, P.P.C falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, which prima facie does not attract in the instant case to the extent of the present accused/petitioner. The matter in hand requires further probe into the guilt of the accused/petitioner. In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. In the above circumstances, I am failed to find any exceptional reason to refuse the concession of bail to the present accused/petitioner. The accused/petitioner is behind the bars for last couple of months, waiting for commencement of the trial of the case. In the above circumstances, I am of the firm view that the case of the accused/petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C, entitling the present accused/petitioner for concession of post arrest bail and the same is allowed.
8. Above are the reasons of our short order dated even which reads as under: "For reasons to be recorded later on, in the detailed judgment, this Petition bearing No. 61/2024 under section 497, Cr.P.C for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No. 10/2024 under section 364- A, P.P.C registered at PS Danyore Gilgit, is allowed.
The accused/petitioner is directed to be released from judicial lock-up, if not required in any other case, subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 300,000/- (three lac) with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court."
9. The observations made, hereinabove are tentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the trial of the case and the learned Trial Court is directed to decided the case strictly on merits in accordance with law. File