' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--- This appeal has been directed against the order of the Shariat Court, dated 20-10-1996 whereby accepting the revision petition filed by Muhammad Sagheer, accused-respondent he was allowed bail.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. Was lodged at Police Station Mirpur City, by Yusuf Kamal, appellant, on 13-9-1996 alleging that at about 9-15 a.m., his brother, Asghar Raza, who was travelling by a Suzuki car to District Jail, Mirpur, for meeting with some detainees, was abducted by three persons who took him towards Chechian. According to the F.I.R. The aforesaid information was given to the complainant by one Nazir Ahmad son of Shabbir Ahmad. It was further disclosed in the F.I.R. That the aforesaid abductors who were armed with fire-arms forcibly got in the car in which Asghar Raza, abductee, was travelling and took him towards the Chechian at gun point. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. That another car followed the car of his brother wherein three or four persons were sitting; the occupants of chasing car also appeared to be the culprits. Consequently, a case under section 364, A.P.C. Was registered. However, when Asghar Raza was recovered badly injured, his statement and the statements of some others were recorded and certain other offences were added to the charge of abduction. Some of the accused persons were arrested. Bail applications were moved before the District Criminal Court by some of the accused alongwith Mirza Muhammad Sagheer, accused-respondent. The others were allowed bail but the prayer for bail made by the respondent was rejected mainly on the ground that he is alleged to be one of the assailants who caused injuries to the abductee. From the record it transpires that subsequently, after recording the statements of the abductee and other witnesses, the offences under sections 324, 337, 341, 342, 147, 148 and 149, A.P.C. Were added to the offence under section 364, A.P.C. A revision petition was preferred by Muhammad Sagheer, accused-respondent, before the Shariat Court for his bail which was accepted and he was extended concession of bail by the Shariat Court.
3. We have heard the arguments. It has been argued by Ch. Muhammad Siddique. Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant that as many as eighteen injuries were found by the Doctor on the person of Asghar Raza, abdqctee, some of which are of grievous nature. He has further argued that the abductee has been in the hospital for more than two months, because he was mercilessly beaten and sustained serious injuries. He has also contended that according to the statement of Asghar Raza, victim of offence, one of the accused persons who caused injuries to him was unknown to him but all the same one of the other prosecution witnesses, namely, Faryad Hussain, has clearly stated under section 161, Cr.P.C. That Muhammad Sagheer, accused-respondent, was armed with pistol and he was one of the assailants who caused injuries to Asghar Raza. The learned counsel further submitted that the Shariat Court has committed grave error in allowing bail to the respondent by setting aside the order of the District Criminal Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the order of the District Criminal Court by which other co- accused in the case were allowed bail has been challenged before the Shariat Court which is still subjudice before it.
4. In reply to Ch. Riaz Alam, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent, has submitted that in view of the fact that Faryad Hussain, P.W., who has named Muhammad Sagheer, accused-respondent, as one of the assailant belongs to Mirpur City, could not have known to the said accused, ' besides, Asghar Razaa, abductee, does not name the respondent as one of the assailants. Thus, the learned counsel has contended that the order of the Shariat Court does not call for interference, especially so when the other accused persons in the case have been released on bail.
5. We have given due consideration to the matter. A perusal of the medical report of Asghar Raza, abductee, is indicative of the fact that he has been mercilessly beaten; as many as eighteen injuries, some of them of serious nature, were found on his body. It is also on the record that when initially three persons forcibly abducted him on gun point, they muffled his face; besides, Faryad Hussain stated in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. That the accused-respondent was one of the assailants who caused injuries to the abductee. It may be stated here that the Shariat Court has mentioned in the impugned order that the case against the accused-respondent was registered under section 364, A.P.C. There is no mention whatsoever about the other offences and injuries sustained by Asghar Raza, abductee. In fact, as has already been stated, although initially a case under section 364, A.P.C. Was registered yet subsequently other charges were added in view of the facts narrated by the victim of offence and other evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. One of the allegations against the accused persons is that they committed the offence as members of unlawful assembly and each one is responsible for the act of the other. These aspects of the case have not been considered at all by the Shariat Court while extending the concession of bail to the accused-respondent despite the fact that they were apparent on the record and required proper consideration by the Court. It has also been brought to our notice that the medical report of Asghar Raza, abductee, was not before the Shariat Court, because the same had not yet been handed over to the Investigating Agency by the Doctor. Under these circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the Shariat Court has not applied its mind to the important aspects of the case, particularly the injuries which are alleged to have been caused to Asghar Raza by the accused persons as members of unlawful assembly. In the light of what has been stated above, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Shariat Court and remand the case to the Shariat Court with the direction that it shall rehear arguments in the case alongwith the case of other co-accused whose matter of the cancelation of bail is also pending before it. How ever, Muhammad Sagheer, accused-respondent, is granted interim bail by this Court till his matter is decided afresh by the Shariat Court in light of the observations made above. It is directed that he shall execute a bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with a-personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Mirpur, failing which he shall be taken into custody.