FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, .1.- The petitioner seeks the grant of hail in case FlR. No. 57/98. Dated 19.4.1998. Under Section 365-A PPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, registered at Police Station, Sarwar Road. Lahore Cantt.
2. Briefly stated allegations contained in the FIR. Are that the complainant Khalid Rahim. Advocate and his brother Ataullah were living in a same house in Toba Tek Singh. On 12.4.1998. At about 4.00 a.m., Munawar Hussain, Sarfraz Sial. Aslairi. Zahin Vasin. S.L. Qan Abid and the petitioner Shahid Mahmood entered the house of the complainant by scaling over its wall. They abducted his brother Ziaullah and one Niaz Khan, a guest from Karachi. They also removed valuable articles frtmi the house with a cash of Rs. 15,000/- and a 222 Rifle with its licence. The told Vie complainant that they were taking both Ziaullah and Niaz Khan to CIA. Lahore. On 16.4.1998, maternal uncle of-the complainant informed on telephone that botlVthe abductees were being kept at Police Station.
Model Town CIA. -Lahore and demanded Rs.5.00.000 - as ransom. The. Telephone call was repeated. The accused persons were apprehended red-handed by a raiding party arranged by Mian Lived. S.P., pursuant to an illegal deal of ransom having been struck. During the investigation of-the case by the S.P., CIA, Lahore, Aslant co- accused.-a Driver, was found innocent and the petitioner was found to be involved to the extent of making a telephone call thereby demanding the ransom.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the arrest of the alleged abductees had been made by a raiding party headed by one Muhammad Yasin. AS1, after making necessary entries in the Police roznamcha after obtaining approval of S.P.. CIA. The petitioner was one of the members of the raiding party. Lt was further argued that even during the investigation of the ease, the offence under Section 365-A PPC was not made out against the petitioner and that even the other persons constituting the raiding party were not challenged. The police has not submitted the challan so far before the competent Court. The remand of the petitioner by the trial Court is not proper in the absence of taking of cognizance.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have argued that the challan of the case is likely to be submitted within next few days under Section 365-A PPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947.
5. We have heard the leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record as produced by the police officer. During the investigation of the case, it was not found to be a case of abduction of the aforesaid two persons. The petitioner, was found involved of making a telephone call for demanding the illegal gratification. The facts on the prosecution case call for further inquiry into the guilt or otherwise of-the petitioner. We need not undertake the deeper appreciation of the prosecution ease lest it may prejudice either side.
6. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50.000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of-the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No. III, Lahore. However, it is made clear that the shall not prevent the competent authority to take a disciplinary action against the accused if considered proper.