1. ABDUL MAJID KHANZAD.A, J.---This is a second bail application on behalf of the applicant. Prior to this Criminal Bail Application No.297 of 1993 was filed on behalf of the applicant, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12-8-1993. The brief facts of the case are that on 16- 5-1991 at about 8-30 p.m. Seven persons in a Suzuki van entered the Attock of Shoukat Ali when he was sitting with his brother Akhtar Ali Khan; Nano Khan son of Shabrati Jangsher son of Din Muhammad Malik and Liaquat son of Muhammad Pariyal Manganhar. All the seven persons got down from the Suzuki van. Out of them five were armed with Kalashinkovs while two were armed with Dandas and they were wearing Malashia clothes. One of the assailant asked who was Shoukat Ali on which they replied that he had gone to Islamabad to see his relation and was not available.
2. One of them who had muffled face pointed out Shoukat Ali the Chairman and gave one Lathi blow on his head. They caught hold of Shoukat Ali and put him in the Suzuki van and tried to start the van but the Suzuki van did not start and then they tried to take him out from the eastern gate as there were some people at the eastern gate they did not go through it and returned. The dacoits armed with Kalashinkovs started firing in the air, on which, his son Bilawal and nephew Noman came running from the house and the dacoits also took them by their arms to Tando Road when Muhammad Din gave Hakals from behind that why they were kidnapping Shoukat Ali Chairman, his son and nephew. They opened the burst of Kalashinkov which hit Muhammad Din on his back side and he died on the spot. The armed dacoits took Shoukat Ali, his son Bilawal and nephew Noman and covered some distance and kept on firing. They then after moving for twp furlongs stopped and robbed them of their cash and belonging Shoukat Ali was then left for arranging money. He returned to Mehrabpur while on his way Mehrabpur police met him and they were informed of the incident. He went to police station and lodged the report.
3. After about three and half months of the incident the dacoits released two boys. The boys who were released stated in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. That the present applicant met them on the way on the third night.
4. Police after unusual investigation sent up the applicant to stand trial in the Court of Judge, Special Court (STA), Nawabshah.
5. The main contentions of the learned counsel are that complainant Shoukat Ali has been examined who has not implicated the applicant but perusal of the evidence would reveal that he has not exonerated the applicant. He has further argued that no identification parade was held through P.W. Mazhar Ali. He has admitted that identification parade was held through Noman one of the abductee and the present applicant was rightly picked up. Both the abductors were returned after three months and their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were recorded on 25-8-1991 while their 164, Cr.P.C. Statements were recorded on 18-8-1992. The present applicant was arrested on 17-3- 1992 by Mehrabpur Police. After identification through the witnesses he was arrested in the present crime F.I.R. No.28 of 1991 and was challaned.
6. Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari learned Assistant A.-G. Has opposed the bail application and argued that first bail application was rejected on 12-8-1993 by a . Division Bench of this Court and no fresh ground has been shown to review that order of the same Bench. According to him this is a third bail application in the trial Court. He has further argued that most important witness and abductee Bilawal and the Investigating Officer remain to be examined.
7. Since the offence is under sections 365-A, 302, 147, 148, 149, 336, P.P.C. And 13-D, Arms Ordinance and 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which fall within the prohibitory clause and some important witnesses such as the abductee Bilawal who remained A with the culprits for about three and half months is yet to be examined. We are of the view that this is not the stage to allow this application, which is accordingly dismissed.