SABOOR KHAN Versus State Malik Sajjad Haider Maitla

ORDER

By this single order we intend to dispose of Crl. Misc. No.4149-B/2015 titled Saboor Khan v. The State, etc. and Crl.Misc.No.4455-B/2015 titled Sanoobar Shaheen etc. v. The State etc. as both are outcome of the same FIR.

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, P.P.C. 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 Kehror 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 mala fide or ill-will 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 Mehmood specifically 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, P.P.C. 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 497, 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.

HBT/S-97/L Bail refused.