The accused were named in the FIR for filing abduction or abduction for Section 497 Preventive Code (XLV of 1860), Section 365 property recovery, valuable security, etc. but the complainant was charged in the commission of the offense against them. No evidence of involvement was mentioned, the statements of the prosecution's two witnesses indicate that the accused had confessed to their crime, but the statements did not reveal the date, the time and place where the accused was. The alleged extra-judicial confession against the accused was allegedly admissible and the prosecution's claim was admissible. And other witnesses, who belonged to the complainant, stated that they saw the accused at the time of the incident and that their co-accused was sitting with the kidnappers, but the fact is that he was related to the C.F.I. The spree was not mentioned in the AR. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused during the investigation and they were behind bars for a period of about 6 months. The accused was admitted on bail accordingly.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
