ABDUR REHMAN vs STATE and another
This post-arrest bail application arose from FIR No. 70/2015 registered under Section 387 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, concerning extortion and threatening calls made to the complainant. The petitioner contended that he did not own the mobile SIMs used, was implicated solely through a co-accused's statement, and that the complainant no longer charged him before the court. The Peshawar High Court rejected the bail petition, holding that a tentative assessment of the material on record—including recoveries made from the co-accused, a witness statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confirming the petitioner took the SIM card used, and the complainant's original Section 164 statement—prima facie linked the petitioner to the crime. The Court further observed that complainants in extortion cases often resile out of fear of grave threats, and such compromise or refusal to charge at the bail stage does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in offences affecting society at large.
- Does a complainant's statement refusing to charge the accused at the bail stage automatically entitle the accused to bail in extortion cases?
- Can material evidence and third-party witness statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. establish a prima facie case to withhold bail despite a complainant's compromised stance?
- What impact does a complainant's U-turn caused by fear or threats have on the maintainability of a bail petition in offences against society at large?
- Section 387, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' The accused-petitioner, Abdur Rahman, seeks bail in case FIR No. 70 dated 14.7.2015 under Seciions 387, PPC/ 7 ATA, Police Station CTD, Peshawar after being declined the said relief by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-III Peshawar on 5.9.2015.
2. Facts in brief leading to the instant petition are that the complainant made a written application to the local police stating therein to have received threatening calls on his Cell Phone No. 03339141385 from Mobile Nos. 0335-8377791 and 0331-8153412 by posing themselves to be members of Tehreek-e-Taliban Bara and had demanded a huge amount, hence the FIR ibid.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that no mobile call was ever made to the complainant by the accused-petitioner demanding any amount and that none of the two mobile numbers he. 0335-8377791 and 0331-8153412 belong to him nor the same had ever remained in his use. His next contention was that the accused-petitioner has been involved on the mere statement of his co-accused who happens to be his cousin and from whom various SIM numbers and mobile sets were recovered and that the case of the accused-petitioner being one of no evidence, therefore, he is entitled to bail. He lastly contended that the complainant present before the Court does not charge the accused-petitioner for the alleged threatening calls and thus on this score too, he is entitled to bail when there is no likelihood of the conviction of the accused-petitioner during trial,
4. The complainant alongwith his counsel stated that they do not charge the accused-petitioner.
5. The learned AAG on his turn strongly opposed the bail petition and contended that the accused- petitioner is directly linked with the commission of the offence which is not only heinous in nature but is also non-compoundable and hence he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Arguments heard and available record perused.
6. It was on the written application of the complainant whereby he stated to have received threatening calls from Mobile Nos. 0335-8377791 and 0331-8153412 with a demand of three crore rupees from him through instalments when the local police spurred into action and after holding inquiry under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Made a major breakthrough in the arrest of co-accused Ghani- ur-Rehman. His arrest not only led to the recovery of mobile sets and various SIM numbers including SIM No. 0331-8153412 from which threatening calls were made to the complainant but he also pointed an accusing finger at the accused-petitioner being his cousin and accomplice. It was thereafter when one Fazal Hadi recorded his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. On 12.8.2015 who on the one hand claimed the ownership of SIM No. 0335-8377791 from which the first threatening call was made to the complainant but also that the said SIM was taken from him by the accused- petitioner and did not return the same to him. The complainant has charged the accused- petitioner alongwith his co-accused by name for holding out threats to him as well as demanding huge amount from him while recording his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C.
7. This Court is fully conscious of the fact that the complainants in like manner matters mostly take a U-turn as they cannot afford to face persons of the ilk of the accused-petitioner in a Court of law as still bigger and grave threats are hurled to them. Of late, this phenomenon of giving threatening calls to the ordinary but affluent people and demanding huge amounts from them has attained a menacing proportion and thereby the perpetrators of such crimes have made the lives of the ordinary people miserable by giving them sleepless nights and this in a way has become a lucrative business for such faceless people.
8. Taking a tentative assessm ent of the available record, the accused-petitioner is prima facie linked with the commission of the offence which is not only heinous but is also against the society at large dis-entitling him to the concession of bail.
' For the reasons stated above, this bail petition being meritless stands dismissed.
' Before parting with this order, it is directed that any observations recorded in this order, being purely tentative in nature, should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided on its own merits after recording evidence.