' The petitioners who stand charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 365/147/149, vide F.I.R. No,667, dated 25-10-1998 registered at Police Station Pabbi, District Nowshera, have been refused bail by the Court below.
2. The petitioners have now approached this Court for the redress of their grievance saying that they are innocent, falsely charged and, thus, entitled to be enlarged on bail.
3. Mr. Arshad Mehmood Lodhi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Khan Azhar Rashid learned Assistant Advocate-General for respondent No, 1/State and Mr. Wali Khan Afridi, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No,2 present and heard. Record of the case perused.
4. A perusal of the record would show that the petitioners have been charged for having abducted the husband of the complainant/respondent No,2. After about 22 days the victim was recovered, in a police raid, and when his statement was recorded, he also charged the petitioners, amongst others, for his abduction. In the circumstances, I am convinced, in my mind, that the Sessions Judge, Nowshera (Mr. Jehangir Khan) has duly taken into consideration all the material facts of the case into consideration and after having done so has recorded a speaking order which of course is the result of proper application of mind.
5. Since the impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary, therefore, it is not liable to be interfered with. Besides on a tentative assessment of the available record it is not possible for me to come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds to exist for believing that the petitioners have not committed the offence charged with. Accordingly, I hold that the discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in refusing bail, has been exercised legally/judiciously and is not liable to be set aside. The reasons given by the Judge for not granting bail to the petitioners are quite sufficient/convincing and I do not want to upset the impugned judgment. Reliance is placed on case Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State reported as '1968 SCM R 1168, wherein it was held by the Honorable Supreme Court:-- ".... The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to appeal.
' On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. For refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed."
6. Accordingly, I am of the view that this bail petition is without, any substance and is, therefore, dismissed.