1. ' The applicant/accused is booked in the F.I.R. No,8 of 2001 recorded at Police Station Gizri, Karachi, under section 365 read with section 34, P.P.C. The challan was initially submitted in the Court of Anti-Terrorism Court but subsequently the same was returned for its presentation before the Sessions Judge, Karachi, District South as according to the learned Special Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court, the ingredients of sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not attracted. The case at present is pending trial in the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 8-1-2001 abductee Haji Muhammad Ibrahim left his residence in his Honda Civic Car bearing registration No,ADR-666 having C. Track System, in the vehicle, at about 12-30 p.m. He did not return till evening, hence his wife Mrs. Tahira informed her brother-in-law namely Muhammad Yousuf at about 2-30 p.m. On telephone. The complainant made search of abductee on telephone from his close relatives. On 9-1-2001 Syed Manzar Abbas one of the business partner of abductee went to police for lodging the report which was recorded in Roznamcha being Entry No,83 of 2001, regarding the missing of abductee. In the meanwhile, the car of the abductee was seen parked at Airport parking place, Karachi. The car is said to have been found at its automatic C. Trace System, which was fixed in the abductee's car. The police papers reveal that the car when left for the Airport had passed through the house of the applicant/accused. Prosecution witnesses namely Mazhar Abbas, Yousuf, Haneef and Sherdil Khan were examined by the police on 14-1-2001. On the basis of statements of these witnesses, the present applicant/accused was arrested in the present case on 14-6-2001.
3. ' It is contended by the learned counsel, Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, appearing for the applicant/accused that there is absolutely no evidence which could connect the applicant/accused with the commission of this crime. The applicant/accused is involved in this case on mere suspicion. It is pleaded that the offence at the most would fall under section 365, P.P.C., which is punishable for 7 years only. The applicant/accused is arrested on the basis of the statements of the aforementioned P.Ws., but their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., are rebutted by the plea of alibi of Raees Ali Khan, brother of the present applicant/accused. It is further argued that the applicant/accused is seriously wounded and at present he is sick and admitted in Agha Khan Hospital and his further detention is detrimental to his life.
4. ' Learned counsel placed reliance upon the cases of Muhammad Dildar Malik v. Tahir Mahmood and another 1998 SCM R 652, Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 534, Ghafoor and others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 369 and Mst. Hurmat v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 1017.
5. ' Mr. Shahadat Awan, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail pleas of applicant/accused on the ground that the sufficient material has been collected by the prosecution which fully involves the present applicant/accused in the commission of this crime.
6. P.Ws. Manzar Abbas, Yousuf, Haneef and Sherdil Khan have stated that Raees Ali Khan, the brother of the present applicant/accused demanded ransom money for release of abductee. It is pleaded that the offence would fall under section 365-A, P.P.C., as the brother of the present applicant/accused made demand of ransom money for the release of the abductee. The abductee is still not recovered by the police. So far as the plea of alibi of Raees Ali is concerned, he pleaded, that it cannot be deeply gone into at the bail stage. The said Raees Ali is still absconding in this case. He only said to have lodged the report in respect of missing of his identity car. Such report could be lodged by any person available at that place. His presence at such place is yet to be established at trial. The offence under section 365-A, P.P.C., is punishable for death. Vehicle of deceased was recovered from Airport base on the basis of automatic C. Track System for which the Expert Major (R) Khalid Abbas has been examined by the police who has stated that the vehicle of abductee had passed through the house of the applicant/accused before it was parked at Airport parking ground. The ailment of the applicant/accused is not so dangerous, so as it could be said to be dangerous to his life. He is receiving treatment in a renowned hospital of Karachi i,e, Agha Khan Hospital.
7. ' Learned counsel placed reliance upon the cases of Abdullah Khan and another v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1679, Nuzhat Fatima v. The State PLD 1996 Kar. 559, Muhammad Arshad v. The State and another 1997 SCM R 1275, Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 20 and Zarin Khan v.
8. The State 1980 SCM R 305.
9. ' The learned State Counsel adopts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and in addition thereto he submits that the concession of bail on the medical ground is a discretion of the Courts and the medical report does not disclose any serious ailment.
10. ' The perusal of the record shows that initially the entry of missing of the abductee was recorded on 9-1-2001 subsequently, the F.I.R. Was recorded on 12-1-2001. The police recorded statements of P.Ws.
11. Manzar Abbas, Yousuf, Haneef and Sherdil Khan on 14-1-2001. They all have stated in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., before police that Raees Ali Khan, brother of the present applicant/accused, demanded ransom money from them for releasing the abductee as well as he asked for the withdrawal of the cases lodged against the present applicant/accused and others.
12. The car of abductee was traced out on the basis of automatic C. Track System installed in the car.
13. The car was examined by the Expert who has stated in his statement that the car had passed through the house of the present applicant/ accused before it was parked at Airport parking ground. The parties are on inimical terms with each other since long and that is the motive for committing this offence.
14. ' The ground of ailment has no force in it as the alleged ailment mentioned in the medical report is not so serious which could be detrimental to the life of the applicant/accused. The offence under section 365-A, P.P.C., is punishable for the death.
15. ' The case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The same is distinguishable from the facts of the instant case.
16. ' There appear no reasonable grounds at this stage to hold that the applicant/accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged. In such circumstances the applicant/accused does not deserve bail, which is declined.