Abdul Bari S/O Abdul Wadood vs The State

Balochistan High Court · 2025 · Before Hon'ble Justice Muhammad Najamuddin Mengal

disposes of Criminal (A TA)Appeal No.205 of 2025 filed by the appellant Abdul Bari (wrongly mentioned as Abdul Hadi) son of Abdul Wadood, against the judgment dated 23rd September 2015, (“the impugned judgment”) passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Quetta (“the trial Court”) whereby the appellant (in abscondence) was convicted under Section 365-A, 34 PPC read with Section 6 (2) (e)/7 A TA 1997 and sentenced for life imprisonment R.I. with fine of Rs.100,000/- in case of default thereof further suffer S.I. for a period of two (02) years. Further the appellant being proclaimed offender was convicted under 21-L of A TA,1997 and sentenced to suffer five (05) years; besides his movable and immovable properties were also directed to be confiscated in favour of State and his CNIC was also directed to blocked. Benefit of Section 382-b Cr.P .C.was also extended in his favour.

2. Facts of the case are that on 29th May 2013, the complainant Haji Abdul Rasheed son of Adam Khan lodged FIR No.25 of 2013 at Police Station Pashtoonabad, Quetta, under Section 365-A, 34 PPC with the Criminal (ATA) Appeal No.205/2025 2 Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. averments that on 27th May 2013 his son namely Ahmed Jan aged about 16/17 years was sent to buy yogurt, but despite lapse of 2/3 hours did not return back to home, as such, he searched his son in the houses of his relatives, but all in vain. Subsequently, on 28th May 2013 at about 10:45 pm a telephone call was received to his brother Haji Abdul Wahid from a cell phone bearing No.0306-9237475, whereby demanded for ransom money for release of his abducted son.

3. It appears from the record that main accused Muhammad Ramzan son of Abdul Salam was arrested, who was subjected to investigation and on completion thereof, challan was submitted in the trial Court, wherein the appellant along with some other accused persons were shown as absconders. Anyhow, the learned trial Court initiated proceedings under Section 87 & 88 Cr.P .C.against the appellant and other absconding accused persons and accordingly they were declared as proclaimed offenders.

4. The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused facing trial, who refuted the same, while the charge against the appellant and other absconding accused was presumed to be denied. At the trial the prosecution in order to establish the charge produced the evidence of Nine (09) witnesses, whereafter the accused facing trial was examined under Section 342 Cr.P .C. He neither recorded his statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P .C. nor produced any witness in his defence. On conclusion of the trial, the accused facing trial as well as the absconding accused including the appellant were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above in para No.1. Needless to emphasis here that since the appellant was absconder, thus it was directed that his sentence shall be executed after his arrest. The appellant was arrested recently and he filed the instant appeal. Criminal (ATA) Appeal No.205/2025 3 Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy.

5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. The admitted feature of the case is that after registration of FIR, the appellant alongwith other accused could not be arrested and accor

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…