1. ' By a short order, dated 11-4-1995 we had allowed the bail application and granted bail to the applicant Rais Naban Khan Lund in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Following are the reasons for our short order.
2. ' The applicant is facing trial under sections 365-A, 109, P.P.C. In Crime No,184 of 1992, Police Station Dadu.
3. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 11-5-1991 three Chinese engineers working on a WAPDA Project were abducted by certain dacoits from near Bhan Town in District Dadu. The F.I.R. Of incident was lodged on 11-5-1991 by S.I.P. Rasool Bakhsh, P.S. Dadu. In that F.I.R. It was mentioned that the gang of dacoits Laiq Chandio had abducted the Chinese Engineers. Those abductees were recovered from Saeedpur Forest on 5-6-1991 by the police of Dadu and Bhan Saeedabad but none of the abductors were apprehended.
4. ' Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that on 22-12-1992 another F.I.R. Was lodged against the applicant by S.I.P. Rasool Bakhsh Siyal of P.S. Dadu on the orders contained in letters dated 3-12-1992 and 9-12-1992 issued by the Brigade Major Infantry Group Dadu and S.S.P., Dadu respectively. In this F.I.R., it was mentioned that the suspect Mujeeb Ahmad Leghari had in his statement before Joint Investigation Team made certain disclosures about the applicant, and therefore the case be registered against him. The Joint Investigation Team's report shows that the Government had contacted through local administration for the recovery of the abducted Chinese from Laiq Chandio who had remained as a servant of Naban Khan Lund and he was under his influence. Chinese abductees were said to be detained in the house of Mujeeb Laghari, when the applicant came there along with Government functionaries. He made a mis-statement to the persons who came along with him that the Chinese abductees were in custody of Qadoo Sargani and that they could be recovered through Laiq Chandio, although Laiq Chandio and the Chinese Engineers were with Mujeeb Leghari and on that night at 3 o'clock Laiq Chandio took away the three Chinese abductees from the house of Mujeeb. From the above circumstances, it was inferred that Naban Khan Lund has a direct hand in this crime and he was also guilty. He had abetted the commission of this crime, and as such the case was registered against him under section 365-A, P.P.C. Read with section 109, P.P.C.
5. ' Learned counsel submitted that the applicant had approached this Court and got protective bail on 26-12-1994 for surrendering before the trial Court. In obedience to the order dated 26-12-1994 the applicant voluntarily surrendered before the trial Court on 9-1-1995 and he was remanded to custody. The charge was framed against him on 19-1-1995 and, thereafter prosecution examined three witnesses and after that the applicant filed bail application in the trial Court on 19-1-1995. The trial Court returned the bail application without passing any orders. In Criminal Bail Application No,184 of 1995 a Division Bench of this Court passed order dated 21-3-1995 and directed that the trial Court shall make efforts to examine the remaining witnesses and conclude the trial within four weeks. Further, it was observed that it would be open to the applicant to move a fresh bail application if such grounds arise. Applicant again moved bail application in the trial Court after the fourth prosecution witness was examined, but the same was rejected vide order dated 2-4-1995.
6. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has urged following grounds for grant of bail to the applicant:-
(a) That there is delay of more than 19 months in lodging the F.I.R. And no plausible explanation has been furnished for such delay;
(b) that there is no mention of the name of the applicant in the earlier F.I.R. Lodged in respect of abduction of Chinese Engineers;
(c) that there is no evidence available with the prosecution to say that the applicant had also received any ransom amount for the release of Chinese Engineers. He has further submitted that the Chinese were recovered from Forest Bhan Saeedabad on 5-6-1991;
(d) that even the statements of abductees have not been recorded that the applicant had taken a part in the commission of the offence;
(e) so far the evidence recorded in this case by the trial Court, it consists of P.Ws. Rasool Bukhsh complainant, P.W. Muhammad Uris, Head Constable, P.W. Ghulam Hussain, Head Constable.
(f) that there only remains the evidence of P.W. Mujeeb Leghari but in spite of a specific direction given by this Court, the trial Court had failed to examine him, and that he had sworn affidavit in the trial Court on 19-1-1995 but even then his statement was not recorded by the trial Court. P.W.
7. Mujeeb Leghari had also sworn as affidavit before this Court on 23-2-1995. He further submitted that the applicant has been involved in this case due to political rivalry;
(g) learned counsel has further argued that at the most evidence against the applicant would attract provisions of section 201, P.P.C. Which is punishable for seven years and is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. ' On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the offence is of serious nature and three Chinese Engineers were abducted and that P.W. Mujeeb Leghari has involved applicant who had abetted the commission of this offence and that because statement of said material witness has not been recorded by the trial Court, it is not fit case for grant of bail.
9. We have given the consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel and have perused the relevant record. In the F.I.R. Which was initially lodged in respect of the abduction of the Chinese Engineers, there was no allegation against the applicant. The second F.I.R. In_ which the applicant is arrayed as an accused is lodged after inordinate delay of more than 18 months and for such delay no plausible explanation is given by the prosecution. The solitary witness on whose evidence the prosecution relies is P.W. Mujeeb Leghari who has sworn two affidavits, one before the trial Court and the other before this Court, and in both such affidavits, the applicant herein is not implicated. P.W. Mujeeb had appeared before the trial Court and sworn an affidavit and it was necessary for the trial Court to have bound him down for his evidence. Such step does not seem to have been taken.
10. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the abductees were kept at the house of P.W.
11. Mujeeb Leghari where the applicant was taken by some functionaries when applicant stated that abductees were not at the house of P.W. Mujeeb Leghari. If such allegation is believed, the case may at the most fall under the provisions of section 201, P.P.C. But in no way the ingredients of section 365-A, P.P.C. Are attracted. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the scheduled offence which are punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for 10 years. The case of the applicant, in our view, would require further enquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And we therefore are inclined to grant him bail. Applicant shall be so released if he furnishes one surety in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.