ALTAF TAHIR vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the court through a post-arrest bail application filed by Altaf Tahir in connection with case F.I.R. No. 811 dated 30-10-2000, registered under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Subzi Mandi, Gujranwala, concerning allegations of abduction for ransom. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial F.I.R. and who promptly approached the police authorities with an application detailing his version as a stamp vendor deceived into visiting the co-accused's house, makes out a case for further inquiry under the statutory provisions governing bail. The court held that the petitioner has established a case for further inquiry, accepting the petition and granting post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of appropriate bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not named in the F.I.R. and promptly presents a plausible version of innocence supported by an immediate representation to police authorities, a case for further inquiry is made out, entitling them to bail.
- Whether an unnamed accused in an F.I.R. who promptly submits an application to police authorities stating his innocence makes out a case for further inquiry?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the circumstances present a case of further inquiry?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is an application for bail after arrest on behalf of Altaf Tahir petitioner in case F.I.R. 811 dated 30-10-2000 registered on the statement of Zafar. Rasheed complainant under section 365-A, P.P.C. at Police Station Subzi Mandi, Gujranwala.
2. According to the F.I.R. which was lodged by Zafar Rasheed complainant, the facts of the case are that his brother-in-law Muhammad Arshad, who was accompanying him was abducted by Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Aamir. Kalu and Maqsood armed with fire-arm and took him to their house situated in Abadi Fazal Kareem, confined both of them in a room, thereafter, Asif came in the "Bhaitak" and demanded Rs,25,00,000 as ransom against the release of Haji Muhammad Arshad and asked him that if the said amount will not be paid Haji Muhammad Arshad will be done to death.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., he was not in fact one of the accused, who had abducted Muhammad Arshad or demanded any ransum, that petitioner is a stamp vandor, he was taken to the house of the other accused in the deceitful manner and in that regard, learned counsel has placed before us copy of application submitted by present petitioner to S.S.P. Gujranwala on the very next day.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for The State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is an accomplice of his co-accused, that he has got no licence of stamp vandor that he has rightly been named even by Muhammad Arshad the victim in this case. that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1). Cr.P.C. that recovery of two other stamp papers were also effected from the petitioner and he is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was not named in .he F.1.R., he was not one of the accused, who had abducted Muhammad Arshad, he never demanded ransum amount from Muhammad Arshad or the complainant, his bona fide is that he has submitted an application to S.S.P. Gujranwala on the very next day stating his version We think that in view of the application submitted by him, he was not a person one of the accused, who had abducted Muhammad Arshad. In view of the matter. a case of further inquiry is made out. therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rupees. 1.00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.