1. Granted.
2. Dismissed as infructuous.
3. This bail application has been filed by the applicant in connection with Crime No,20 of 2001 which was registered with Police Station Dilmurad for offences under sections 365-A, P.P.C., 7, A.T.A., 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance.
' Briefly the facts of the prosecution as per F.I.R. Are that in the night of incident at about 10,00 p.m.
The complainant and his brother Raza Muhammad and cousin Abdul Nabi and relative Habibullah were available in the shop, run by complainant, when 8 persons came there on three motorcycles, out of whom the complainant party identified six person to be Rafique Khoso, 2 Sikander Katohar, 3.
Israr Khoso,
4. Javed Bangulani,
5. Silawal Jakhrani,
6. Naseer Jakhrani and remaining two were not identified. Out of them accused Rafique, Sikandar, Javed and two unknown persons were armed with K.Ks. While accused Bilawal, Israr and Naseer were having T.T. Pistols. The moment they came, accused Javed, Sikander and Israr entered in the shop and abducted Raza Muhammad, brother of complainant, at the instance of weapons, asking the complainant party that the abductee would be released on the payment of ransom. Subsequently, the accused forcibly made the abductee sit on the motorcycle in between accused Javed and Sikandar and was whisked away. Thereafter, complainant tried to approach the nekmard, who had gone out of town and at the same time as he returned on 2-4-2001, the incident was reported to him, and ultimately on this advice complainant lodged the above report with Police Station Dilmurad.
' After usual investigation police had challaned the case of applicant/accused on 25-5-2001 being a scheduled offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
' Apparently a bail application was moved by applicant before the trial Court which was declined giving rise to the present application.
' I have heard the learned counsel and perused the material brought on record. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that there is inordinate delay of about 6 days in lodging of the F.I.R.; the complainant, abductee Raza Muhammad, Abdul Nabi, Habibullah in this case have filed their affidavits, before trial Court exonerating the applicant/accused from commission of the offence and making a statement that they have not given the name of the applicant/accused in the F.I.R. As well as 161, Cr.P.C. Statements nor before any authority. He further went on to say that the exoneration of the applicants through affidavits makes this case one of two versions, the one as disclosed in the F.I.R. And 161, Cr.P.C. Statements and the second version disclosed by the P.Ws. In their affidavits before he trial Court, which prove the case of prosecution doubtful and calls for further enquiry.
' Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Asstt. A.-G. For the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the name of the applicant/accused finds place in the F.I.R. And statements of complainant and P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. And he being armed with K.K. Has been assigned active role of facilitating the co-accused in abduction of Raza Muhammad.
Since the F.I.R. Is lodged after considerable delay of six days and the complainant, abductee Raza Muhammad and P.Ws. Abdul Nabi and Habibullah have ruled out the possibility of commission of offence at the hands of applicant/accused through affidavits before trial Court and shifted the burden of implicating applicant/accused in F.I.R. And 161, Cr.P.C. At the police, which makes this case one of two versions and calls for further enquiry. The recovery of T.T. Pistol is effected only from co-accused Bilawal and Naseer but not the present applicant. On all these grounds, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused in the sum of Rs,100, 000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.