GULAB SHAH Versus STATE

ORDER

1. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner, Gulab Shah who, alongwith other two persons, is facing trial under sec tions 364/394 and 34‑A, P. C. read with section 17, Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, before the District Criminal Court, Mirpur.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that one Khawaja Nazir Ahmed, was coming back to his home in Dadyal town from Mirpur on his Car No. A J K/5936, on 21st September, 1982 and when he reached on the other side of the Palak bridge at the turn of village Guah, near the landslide, he saw three persons, namely Gulab Shah, petitioner, Muhammad Bashir and Sulleman Shah, standing near a Car No. 118/576 Karachi 29 parked on the road. Thinking that the said car had developed some defects, he came out of his car and went towards the aforesaid persons to offer his help to them but he was given beating and forcibly made to suit in their car. The petitioner sat in the car of Kh. Nazir Ahmed and then the accused persons drove both the cars towards Mirpur but the same were stopped at Jari Kas by a police party from Mirpur Police Station which, on receiving the information about the incident on telephone from Dadyal, had picketed the road. The petitioner was arrested and the car and pistol belonging to Khawaja Nazir Ahmed were seized while the other accused succeeded in driving their car back wards Kotli who were later on also stopped at Badli by the police party belonging to Sehnsa Police Station which had also picketed the said road on information received about the incident. The other accused persons however, succeeded in making good their escape under the cover of fire opened by them on the police party while abandoning the said car from which Kh. Nazir Ahmed, abductee was recovered by the police. The other accused persons were, however, arrested at a place known as Aular by a police party from the said Police Chowki. The petitioner moved bail application before the trial Court but the same was rejected by it vide its order dated 17th February, 1983 and hence this bail application.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State and also gone through the record of the case. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It has been further contended that regarding the incident two F. I. Rs. one at Police Station Dadyal and .the other at Police Station Mirpur, have been lodged which are inconsistent and contain different versions of the incident thereby making the case against the petitioner doubtful necessitating further inquiry. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the State who had contended that the petitioner is charged with a heinous offence such as abducting a person with the intention to kill him and highway robbery for which he can be punished with life imprisonment and; as such, is not entitled to be released on bail.

4. After giving my due consideration to the arguments addressed at the bar and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that at this stage, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. The mere contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on which he mainly urges the grant of bail to the petitioner that two F. I. Rs. at different police stations have been lodged containing different versions of the incident, is not by itself a sufficient ground for allowing bail concession to the petitioner. The F. I. R. is not a substantial piece of evidence and the fate of the case does not solely rests on it. The object of F. I. R. is only to move the Police concerned to investigate the commission of offence brought to its notice through it. At the bail stage, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not carry much weight and the bail matter needs to be decided on the material on record against the petitioner gathered during the investigation of the case notwithstanding the fact that the report was also made with the Police Station Mirpur. As a matter of fact, the report lodged with the Police Station Mirpur cannot be said to be a report of commission of offence for which the petitioner and other accused persons have been challaned as it substantially contains an information that somebody was found driving the car belonging to Khan Nazir Ahmed and says nothing about the facts constituting the occurrence itself. The evidence appearing against the petitioner on the record, prima facie, in my opinion, connects the accused‑petitioner with the commission of offence with which he is charged. There is an ocular evidence of the eye‑witnesses as well as abductee himself clearly involving the petitioner as one of the accused. The car alleged to have been snatched away from the abductee by the robbers at the time of occurrence, was being driven by the petitioner when he was arrested and the revolver belonging to the abductee was also re covered from his possession. The above evidence, prima facie, connects the petitioner with the commission of offence of abduction of a person with the intention to kill him and that of highway robbery which can be visited with the life imprisonment as well. Moreover, one of the con siderations which is always kept in view while considering bail matter, is as to whether or not there is any possibility of abscondence of the accused person in case he is bailed out. In this case, the petitioner belongs to District Kohistan of Hazara Division of Pakistan and is alleged to have come to Mirpur District with a view to abducting a person. Thus, there is great possibility of the petitioner's avoiding the trial and becoming absconder in case he released on bail. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case where concession of bail should be granted to the petitioner and accordingly the bail application is rejected.

5. Petition dismissed