2012 PLP 1128 (MLD)

SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.

F.I.R No. 16 of 2011 was recorded at Police Station, Akil on 29-3-2011 for an incident alleged to have taken place on 20-10-2010. The complainant stated that the alleged abductee Mst. Seema is his daughter and was a student at a Government High School. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the present applicant used to tease the alleged abductee. On the eventful day, complainant along with his relative went to the school to bring back the girl and he saw the present applicant with three other persons, all four being armed with pistols present there. As soon as the alleged abductee came out of the school the present applicant and his accomplices on force of weapons abducted the daughter of the complainant, put her in a car and sped away while two co-accused on a motorcycle followed. The complainant initially tried to get the abductee released through local influentials and when police refused to register F.I.R. he approached the Additional Sessions Judge and on such orders F.I.R. was registered. It may be stated at the very outset that the alleged abductee had not been recovered so far. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that firstly, the alleged abductee has not been recovered; secondly there is a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and thirdly investigation has already been completed and no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the applicant behind bars. Learned counsel relied upon certain case-law to which I shall refer in due course. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that a girl of tender years has been abducted and till today she has not been recovered. He submitted that prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed regarding abduction and the role of the present applicant and the applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. with not only a specific role in abduction but also his behaviour prior to such abduction. He further states that delay has been adequately and plausibly explained. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. As far as delay in recording F.I.R. is concerned, in cases of abduction it is normally first practice of the families to try to recover the alleged abductee and therefore delay is rarely, if ever, material. Moreover, this F.I.R. was registered after an order had been obtained from an Additional Sessions Judge. In view of both these facts, in my opinion, delay has been reasonably and plausibly explained. Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, firstly relied upon Falak Sher alias Phalli v. State 1999 PCr.LJ

947. It was a case in which abduction and Zina was alleged. The alleged abductee did not support the version given in the F.I.R. and declined undergo the medical examination. In Manazar Hussain Shah v. State 1999 PCr.LJ 86, again it was a case alleging abduction and Zina. The alleged abductee appeared before the Magistrate and gave two contradictory statements, one in favour of accused and other against him. There was allegation of forced marriage and it was held that it required further enquiry, In Muhammad Azhar Nadeem v. State, 2002 PCr.LJ 12, the abductee was neither recovered from custody of the accused nor she charged the accused with commission of Zina in a statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. In Liaquat Ali v. State, 2005 MLD 1974, the alleged abductee in a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., had levelled allegation of Zina against the accused and all other accused named in the F.I.R. All the other accused had been granted bail and consequently, bail was granted to the applicant also. Last case relied upon by Mr. Ghouri, was Abdul Rauf alias Rauf v. State 1999 PCr.LJ 1109. The complainant was husband of the alleged abductee who was not present at the time when abduction took place. The only piece of evidence against the applicant was that the alleged abductee was recovered from house of the accused. Bail was granted on the ground that key ingredient of the offence under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 that there be either a confession or four adult male witnesses, was lacking. All the case-law is clearly distinguishable because in three of the cases the alleged abductee had not supported the F.I.R or had given contradictory statements. Liaquat Ali's case is not authority for any such proposition as the learned counsel advanced because all that it observes is that bail was allowed due to the principle of consistency. In Abdul Rauf's case (Supra), there was no witness for abduction whereas in the present case there are two witnesses to the abduction. The alleged abductee has not so far been recovered. In the F.I.R. there is clear statement implicating the present applicant in abduction and prosecution witnesses have supported the version stated in the F.I.R. Contention of Mr. Ghouri that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the applicant behind bars is not material in the circumstances because the alleged abductee has not been recovered and saga of agony of the family whose daughter has been allegedly abducted right in front of eyes of her father is still going on with no apparent end insight. Result of the above discussion is that this criminal bail application is dismissed. M.W.A./A-38/K Bail refused.