SABOOR KHAN vs STATE etc.
This matter involves two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail by the petitioners, Saboor Khan, Sanoobar Shaheen, and Zahoor Hussain, who are accused in FIR No. 504/2014 for the abduction of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in light of the allegations and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, noting that the alleged abductee had specifically nominated the accused and that the vehicle used in the abduction had been recovered by the police. The Court further observed that the petitioner Sanoobar Shaheen had actively facilitated the abduction. Regarding the argument of mala fide intent due to a prior landlord-tenant relationship, the Court found no evidence of ill-will or ulterior motive. The Court emphasized that the demand for ransom is sufficient to constitute the offence and that the matter falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant procedural law. Consequently, the bail petitions were dismissed, with the trial already underway.
- Does the mere fact that an alleged abductee returned on their own create sufficient doubt to warrant bail?
- Is the demand for ransom sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a prior landlord-tenant relationship between the complainant and the accused, without further proof of ill-will, establish mala fide intent for false implication?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' By this single order we intend to dispose of Crl. Misc. No, 4149-B/2015 titled Saboor Khan vs. The State, etc, and Crl. Misc. No, 4455-B/2015 titled Sanoobar Shaheen etc. Vs. The State etc. As both are outcome of the same F.I.R.
2. Saboor Khan, Sanoobar Shaheen and Zahoor Hussain, petitioners seek their post arrest bail in a case Bearing FIR No, 504/2014, dated 30.12.2014, offence under Section 365-A, PPC read with Section 7 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Saddar Khanewal, for abduction of son of the complainant namely, Masood Aqeel.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged abductee came back on his own and he was never abducted by the petitioners; that the alleged abductee stated that he was kept in Balochistan but in a few hours how he .Came at the office of DSP Kahror Pakka which creates serious doubt in the prosecution story; that previously the petitioners were the tenants of the complainant and they have been involved with mala fide intention; that six persons have been involved from the family; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners, therefore, case of the petitioners requires further inquiry.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and argued that there is no mak fide or of the complainant or the alleged abductee to falsely involve the petitioners in this case.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, during the investigation all the petitioners have been found involved in the occurrence. The alleged abductee namely, Masood Aqeel Mahmoodspecifically nominated all the accused for his abduction. The car in which the alleged abductee was abducted has been taken into possession during the investigation by the police. As far as petitioner, Sanoobar Shaheen is concerned, she fully participated in the occurrence and facilitated abduction of the alleged abductee to give an impression that a family was travelling in the car Whether the ransom has been paid or not is immaterial, demand of ransom is sufficient to constitute an offence under.
Section 365, PPC. The trial has commenced and the charge has been framed The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that previously the petitioners are the tenants of the complainant, therefore, they have been involved with mala fide intention but the learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any ill-will or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant for false involvement of the petitioners. The alleged offence falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 49T Cr.P.C. This being so, these petitions have no force and same stand' dismissed.
7. It is, however, clarified, that the observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.