1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.--- We intend to dispose of these two bail applications with a common order as both the applications arise out of the same case.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that on 13-8-1992 an F.I.R. Was registered with Police Station Bachalpur of District Nawabshah under sections 365-A, P.P.C. And 13-D of Arms Ordinance. Mainly the allegations in the F.I.R. Are that about seven months prior to registration of F.I.R., the complainant alongwith his relative Aslam, hereinafter referred to as the "abductee" were on their lands for their water turn when at about 11-30 p.m. Five persons duly armed with klashnikov and single-barrel guns had approached them and abducted them. It is in the F.I.R. That when the culprits were taking the complainant and abductee towards western side and reached near a Bund then the complainant taking the advantage of thick forest escaped and returned to the village where he narrated the facts to his Nekmard. The complainant then accompanied the Nekmard and paid a ransom of Rs,12,000 to co-accused Peeral for securing the release of the abductee, who was so released after a lapse of one month. The complainant party being afraid of dacoits did not find courage to lodge the F.I.R. And it is when the Army was inducted in aid civil administration that the complainant party mentioned the courage to get the F.I.R. Registered. The police after usual investigation sent up the case for trial, alongwith arrested accused. The present two applicants were shown to have been absconders who were subsequently arrested and consequently the challan was produced. Bail application was moved on behalf of the two applicants which were rejected and, therefore, these bail applications.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Nanden A. Kella, Advocate for applicant Gul Muhammad alias Guli while none is present for applicant Shabbir Shah. The points raised are similar. The main contention raised by Mr. Nanden A. Kella, Advocate is that the names of the applicants are not shown in the F.I.R. Nor any overt act is attributed to them. He further states that the other co-accused have been granted bail and, therefore, rule of consistency requires that the present applicants should also be granted bail.
4. Lastly, he has submitted that the abductee and complainant have sworn affidavits to the effect that they had never identified any of the present applicants.
5. ' As against this, the learned A.A.-G. Has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has pointed out that in the deposition of the abductee in Court, he has categorically mentioned the names of the present applicants alongwith other accused as to be amongst the dacoits who had abducted him.
6. ' We have given anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the first instance it may be observed that in the the complainant has stated that five persons had come there who abducted them. In the deposition in Court, the abductee Aslam categorically stated that "I identify the dacoits to be Guli, Ghulamoo, Mehar, Shabbir Shah, Shamun Jatoi and one Mochi. This clearly shows that the abductee who has been with the culprits for a period of one month had enough opportunity to see/identify and name the culprits. In the case of Sanaullah and 3 others v. The State 1983 SCM R 15 their Lordships have held that even one witness implicates the culprits, the conviction can be based on such evidence. However, this is subject to over all evidence. In the present case the abductee himself having named the accused in his statement in Court on oath would show that there is some material on the record available to give rise to inference with regard to involvement of the accused in the alleged crime. As regards the rule of consistency reliance may be placed on the case of Muhammad Azeem v. The State PLD 1988 SC 84 wherein their Lordships have held "mere fact that a person who should not have been allowed bail was allowed bail in the same case does not justify grant of bail to a person who is otherwise not entitled to it". In these circumstances, we are of the view that there being evidence of abductee against the applicants, the applicants would not be entitled to grant of bail. The third contention raised by the learned counsel is that the abductee as well as the complainant have given affidavits to the effect that they had never identified the applicants. From the statement of the abductee We find that he has named the culprits. Both statements of the abductee are on oath. In these circumstances obviously one of the two statements is a false statement made on oath for which the abductee is liable to prosecution. However, we leave it for the trial Court before whom the two statements are made on oath to issue notice to abductee.
7. With the above observations, we find no substance in the two le applications which are accordingly dismissed.