MOMIN and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 365-A and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, concerning the alleged abduction of the complainant's son for ransom. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the gravity of the offense, the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and the incriminating material on record. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail applications, holding that sufficient material, including mobile data records and the statement of the abductee recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, established reasonable grounds connecting the petitioners to the crime. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is charged with an offense punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment falling within the prohibitory clause and section 21-D(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and where no mala fide for false implication is shown, bail ought not to be granted.
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with abduction for ransom under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the bar on bail under section 21-D(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 apply when reasonable grounds connect the accused to an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment?
- Do statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute sufficient material to deny post-arrest bail in heinous offenses?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance 2009
- Section 21-D(2), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Petitioners, Momin and Ahmed Shah, through instant application, seek bail in case F.I.R. No,689 dated 27-5-2012 under sections 365-A/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Police Station Pishtakhara, Peshawar. Similarly, co- accused Shah Mir has also filed a separate application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1115-P of 2012) for his release on bail. As both the petitions arise out of one and the same F.I.R., therefore, it is proposed that the connected bail application shall also stand disposed of through this single judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1089-P of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27-5-2012, complainant Kiramat Shah submitted a written report to the police wherein it was stated that his son namely Sheroz, student of F. Sc, has left the house on 7-4-2012 due to some reprimand, whose mobile phone remained active for about two weeks but thereafter the same became inactive (dead) and he is still ignorant about the whereabouts of, his son as to where he has gone. This report was incorporated .In Mad No,133 of the Daily Diary dated 27-5-2012 of Police Station Pishtakhara, District Peshawar and inquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Was initiated. On 20-7-2012, the complainant gave supplementary statement before the local police which was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And then under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein he charged the present petitioners along with others for the abduction of his son and demanding ransom amount . Of Rs,10 lacs from him. It transpires from the record that the abductee after about four months of detention succeeded to release himself from the clutches of accused, who after reaching home informed the police and his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Was recorded. He also recorded his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. On 27-8-2012 wherein besides other accused; the present petitioners too were nominated for the commission of offence.
Petitioners, after their arrest, applied for bail before the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Peshawar but their applications were turned down vide orders dated 3-8-2012. Hence they knocked the door of this Court through instant separate applications.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that accused/petitioners are closely related to the complainant party. Petitioners were afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the abductee at the time of recording his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. But no convincing factor of any apparent mala fide or ill will on part of the complainant party towards false implication of petitioners in the case was brought on file. The government has amended the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 through the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance 2009, which bars Courts from granting bail to suspected terrorists liable to death sentence, life imprisonment or 10 years imprisonment.
The prosecution has brought on record sufficient materials in the shape of record of mobile data of accused and statement of abductee under section 164, Cr.P.C, on account of which, reasonable grounds do exist to believe that accused petitioners are connected with the commission of the offences, charged with. Moreover, subsection (2) of section 21-D of the ATA, says that if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that any person accused of non-bailable offence has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for not less than 10 years, such person shall not be released on bail. The offence with which petitioners are charged carries death penalty or imprisonment for life or fourteen years rigorous imprisonment, therefore, their case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And thus this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
5. For the reasons stated above, I see no merit in these two bail applications and the same are hereby dismissed.