2003 P Cr (PLP)

Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 26th March, 2003. Applicant Akbar has been arrested for an offence punishable under sections 10, 11 and 16 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Bugti Colony, District Jacobabad. It is gathered from the F.I.R. that Mst. Gul Khatoon wife of complainant Hidayatullah was abducted from the house of complainant about one year back at about 8-00 p.m. by six persons. including applicant Akbar. All of them had come on motorcycles. Raza Muhammad, the main accused was armed with a Rocket Launcher and the rest had Kalashnikovs. They forcibly dragged Mst. Gul Khatoon and took her away on motorcycle. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that complainant Hidayatullah previously suspected Raza Muhammad to have illicit terms with his wife, therefore, he restrained him from visiting his house. After the incident, the complainant approached Raza Muhammad, who kept him on false hopes. He then approached the head of the tribe Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, who wrote letters to Nekmards, but with no result, : and ultimately Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti advised him to lodge report at police station. During the investigation, abductee appeared voluntarily and her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein she supported the contents of the F.I.R. and implicated the applicant. She stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by Raza Muhammad while the others kept her under vigil. However, on seeking an opportunity, she got out from the clutches of the culprits. I have heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.A.-G. Learned counsel for applicant contended that there is unexplained delay of one year for lodging of the F.I.R. and the only allegation against the applicant is that he was accompanying the culprits. He further submitted that there was previous family dispute between the parties, the guilt of applicant would, therefore, require further inquiry. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.-G. opposed the bail on the ground that the abductee in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. has fully implicated the applicant right from the stage of abduction. Besides, she was also subjected to sexual intercourse and during her captivity she was under surveillance of the others including the applicant. I have carefully considered all these contentions. As far the delay in lodging information to police is concerned, certainly there is inordinate delay, but at least an explanation has been offered in the F.I.R, itself. It seems that despite indulgence of headman of the tribe the abductee was not returned. The Honourable Supreme Court has taken notice of the taboos of society, that in such a state of affairs under compelling circumstances, the people refrain from lodging of F.I.R. immediately. Reference in this context be made to Mehboob Ahmad v. State 1999 SCMR 1102. At this stage, it would, therefore, be difficult to comment that the delay in lodging the F.I.R was unjustified. The applicant is nominated in the F.I. R. and the abductee in her statements under sections 164 and 161, Cr.P.C. has implicated him saying that he was amongst the culprits, who abducted her and kept her under control. The order of learned trial Court shows that. she was pregnant after recovery. She remained in captivity for a period of one year. Learned counsel for applicant relied upon the case of Hazar Khan v. State 2003 PCr.LJ 33, in which independent witnesses were not examined. Incidentally in this case there is evidence of witnesses of locality, who have at least seen the incident. Prima facie, the evidence of victim coupled with the ocular evidence of complainant and other witnesses on the point of abduction and the medical evidence, connect the applicant with the crime. The bail plea in the circumstances is premature and is rejected. The application is accordingly dismissed H.B.T./A-455/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.