2009 PLP 1731 (YLR)

SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.

The petitioner has moved this petition for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.84 dated 17-2-2007 under sections 376/365(B), P.P.C. registered at Police Station Jampur District Rajanpur.

2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner along with his co-accused abducted Mst. Shahnaz Mai aged about 17 years and she was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr by them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier petition for post-arrest bail moved by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn after direction was passed by this Court for conclusion of the trial within three months which direction, however, could not be complied with an not a single P.W. has been recorded so far, therefore, request was made that petition moved by the petitioner be disposed of on merits.

4. It was urged that the abductee was produced before the Court of learned Area Magistrate on 15-6-2007 for her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. She stated before the learned Magistrate that she was being forced by her father to make statement according to his wishes and that she be lodged in Dar-ul-Aman, as a result of which the lady was sent to Dar-ul-Aman. It was next urged that F.I.R. was lodged with unexplained delay of about six days. The case against the petitioner was false. Co-accused of the petitioner namely Razi had been allowed bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge with similar role. During the police investigation, it had come to light that the petitioner had left with Ghulam Mustafa absconding accused with her free consent. Both Ghulam Mustafa and Shehnaz Mai were caught by police of Police Station City Rajanpur and from there, the girl was handed over to her father. It was submitted that vaginal swabs were not sent for chemical analysis and this has been confirmed by the learned trial Court in its report dated 13-10-2008 as well. The petitioner has been in the Jail for the last about eight months without any progress in the trial. For all these reasons, this was' a case of further inquiry.

5. Opposing the petition, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General submitted that in her statement dated 17-2-2007, the abductee had fully implicated the petitioner in the occurrence. The petitioner and three of his co-accused were involved in offence of capital punishment. The challan had been submitted in the Court. Deep appreciation of facts and law was not required at this stage and any observation recorded by this Court may cause prejudice to the case of the complainant.

6. Contention of the petitioner that the abductee refused to make statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 15-6-2007 before the learned Area Magistrate is supported by the record in the light of which the statement dated 17-2-2007 recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. made by the victim per se makes this case as one of further inquiry. One of the co-accused is absconding, therefore, conclusion of the trial was delayed. The learned trial Court also failed to have a proper grip on the conclusion of trial which is not desirable. The petitioner cannot be kept in the Jail for an indefinite period. .

7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-136/L Bail granted.