Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAQSOOD SHAHZAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Shahid Hameed DarFahad Naveed
2013 Y L R 1743
[Lahore]
Before Shahid Hameed Dar, J
MAQSOOD SHAHZAD---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.584-B of 2013, decided on 23rd January, 2013.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 497(2) & 161---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc.---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Implication based on supplementary statement of complainant---Complainant implicating accused on basis of his "firm belief"---Effect---Accused was alleged to have abducted the alleged abductee so as to snatch her gold ornaments and cash---Story mentioned in the F.I.R. appeared a bit vague, as the complainant merely showed his "firm belief" without hinting at any incriminating evidence, even against those accused persons, he had been named in the F.I.R.---Present accused was implicated in the case through a supplementary statement of the complainant, alleging that accused had made a telephone call to his brother and used derogatory language against him---Alleged abductee was still to be recovered and since arrest of accused there had been no progress towards her recovery---Case was one of further inquiry into guilt of accused---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Bail, relief of---Scope---Relief of bail could not be withheld as a matter of punishment nor could one be left to rot in jail only to satisfy a complainant.
Fahad Naveed for Petitioner.
Ms. Muqadass Tahira, Addl: Prosecutor-General Punjab.
Aslam S.-I. with record.
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Maqsood Shahzad (petitioner) seeks bail after arrest in case-F.I.R. No.160/12 dated 16-3-2012 registered for an offence under section 365-B, P.P.C., at Police Station Nishatabad (Faisalabad).
2. Precisely, the prosecution-case as narrated by Muhammad Amjad Gill (complainant) is that his sister Mst. Sajida Parveen visited his house on 1-1-2011 and after an overnight stay she left for the house of her husband, being in possession of gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas and cash Rs.50,000; she did not reach the destination and disappeared in between; he repeatedly tried to contact his sister on telephone but he found it switched-off; he fetched the call-data and learnt that the SIM of the cell phone of his sister was used by accused Muhammad Ashiq, Arfan Ahmad and Shahzad Masih on various occasions; he showed firm belief that the aforesaid accused along with some unknown accused had abducted his sister to snatch gold ornaments and cash from her.
3. The complainant rendered a supplementary statement on 8-7-2012, whereby he contended that he searched for his missing sister and gathered the information that Maqsood Shahzad (petitioner) was the main character in the entire episode, as he telephonically contacted the brother of the complainant and used the virulent language.
4. Learned Addl: Prosecutor-General Punjab, after having gone through the record, submits that the alleged abductee has not been recovered so far and the Investigating Officer has not collected any incriminating evidence against the petitioner except for a call-log, the effects whereof are not too clear.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is inordinate delay of more than five months in lodgment of the F.I.R. and no explanation has been offered by the complainant in this regard; it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and he merits release on bail.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is found that the story contained in the F.I.R. appears a bit vague, as the complainant merely showed his 'firm belief,' without hinting at any incriminating evidence, even against those, whom he named as accused therein. The petitioner was implicated in this case by the complainant through a supplementary statement, rendered by him on 8-7-2012, whereby, he contended that Maqsood Shahzad (petitioner) had a hand in the abduction of his sister as he telephonically contacted his brother Muhammad Akram and used derogatory language against him. The alleged abductee is still to be recovered. The petitioner was taken into custody on 10-7-2012 and there has not been any progress so far, towards recovery of the alleged victim. To keep the petitioner behind the bars, for an indefinite period of time, may not serve any useful purpose. The relief of bail cannot be withheld, as a matter of punishment, nor one can be left to rot in jail only to satisfy a fuming complainant. It is certainly a case, which constitutes need for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
MWA/M-49/L Bail granted.