GHULAB KHAN vs The STATE and another
The accused-petitioner Gulab Khan sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 655 dated 28-6-2013 registered under section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 at Police Station Charsadda, after being refused by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the discretionary relief of bail when directly charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. and supported by statements of the victim and his father under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 involving an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused was connected with the heinous offense of kidnapping for ransom, which falls within the prohibitory clause. The Court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that courts must be vigilant when considering bail for offenses falling within the prohibitory clause where prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime.
- Whether an accused directly charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. for kidnapping for ransom is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an offense under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the judicial considerations when dealing with bail applications for offenses falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Accusedpetitioner Gulab Khan seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,655 dated 28-6-2013 under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Read with section 7, Anti- Terrorism Act, registered at Police Station, Charsadda. He was refused bail by the learned Judge, ATC-I, Peshawar vide his order dated 26-9-2013, so he has approached this Court for his release on bail.
2. Facts of the case are that on 28-6-2013 at 9.00 hours Mst. Jan Parvaiz wife of Faiz-ur-Rehman made report to the police for the kidnapping of her son namely, Immad aged about 13-years while he was on his way to school. She charged the accused-petitioner along with his co-accused for the above offence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the accused-petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. For the kidnapping of Immad for ransom. The victim after his release from the clutches of the accused, recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 30-7-2013 before Judicial Magistrate, Charsadda wherein he charged the accused-petitioner along with his co-accused for his kidnapping. His father, Faiz-ur-Rehman has also charged the accused-petitioner along with his co-accused in his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before Judicial Magistrate, Charsadda on 30-7-2013. The statement of the minor victim boy clearly suggests that the accused-petitioner had a clear-cut, hand in the commission of the offence in question. It is also in the statement of Faizur Rehman his father that he has paid Rs, Five lac as ransom for the release of his son Immad. Hence, there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is connected with the offence charged with punishment for which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And therefore, no case for the grant of bail is made out at this stage. Section 497, Cr.P.C. Is divided into two parts. One part deals with those cases which are called offences falling under prohibitory clause and the other part of section 497, Cr.P.C. Deals with those offences which do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The considerations for both clauses of cases are different from each other. It has been held by the apex Supreme Court that the bail in cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause should be granted bail as a rule and bail should be refused in an exceptional case. Thus, it is obvious from the above proposition of law that while considering bail in cases which fall under prohibitory clause, the Court is to be more vigilant and conscious in granting the discretionary relief of bail when he finds that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused-petitioner is involved with the offence charged with falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and reasons the present case is covered by the prohibitory clause, therefore, this bail application is dismissed.
5. Resultantly, the instant bail application is dismissed.