1998 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Bail Application No.463 and Miscellaneous Application No.712 of 1997, decided on 2nd February, 1998. ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109/34‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11/16‑‑‑Bail, grant, of‑‑ F.I.R was lodged after delay of nearly nine days without any plausible explanation‑‑‑Application was moved by brother of accused before Sessions Judge with a request that accused be called from Police custody as he had been arrested by Police due to enmity‑‑‑Affidavit was also sworn by alleged abductee before Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate‑‑‑Case against accused warranting further inquiry, .bail was granted to accused. Muhammad Ashraf Leghari for Applicant. Anwar Ansari for the State.

1. Exemption is allowed but subject to ail just exceptions.

2. Bail is sought by Dr. Ayaz Hussain in respect of Crime No.50 of 1997 registered at Police Station, Pangrio tinder section 11/16, Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 109 and 34 of the P.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Ghulam Hussain Malah had on 20‑8‑1997 at 7‑00 p.m. lodged a report stating therein that he is a Hari of Chaudhary Iqbal and residing alongwith his family and father‑in‑law. He further stated in the F.I.R. to be having five daughters and three sons, out of whom one of the daughters is Mst. Yasmin aged about 16 years. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that on 11‑8‑1997, the inmates in the complainant's house went to sleep and in the morning found Mst. Yasmin was missing and on inquiry his relative, namely, Jafer informed the complainant that while he was at turn of the water in the night, he had seen one white Suzuki and one motorcycle: After some time, he saw Dr. Ayaz and Khan Muhammad Malah taking Mst. Yasmin towards the Suzuki pick‑up. The complainant is further stated to have been informed that all three persons were identified on torch light and‑they were going towards the direction of Shadi Lodge. The learned defence counsel before me has contended that there is substantial delay of nearly nine days in the lodging of the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation coming forthwith. He has contended that no doubt, the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. has been recorded but the same is materially contradicting the contents of the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant He has invited my attention to the aspect that the present applicant was in fact arrested on 20‑8‑1997 by the police on account 6f enmity which is substantiated by the fact that an application was moved before the learned Sessions‑Judge Badin with a request that tile present applicant be called from4he police custody and leis statement be recorded as the present applicant was staled to ‑be a Medical Officer of the area. Upon: hearing, the learned Sessions' Judge, Badin directed issuance of notice and had sought comments by fixing the date of hearing on the following day i.e. 21‑8‑197: It is further revealed from record that on 21‑9‑1997, the application filed by the brother of the applicant in the Court of District Judge, Badin was dismissed for non‑prosecution. My attention has further been invited to the affidavit sworn by the alleged abductee Mst. Yasmin on 19‑8‑1997 before the learned Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Badin. Further aspect of news item appearing on 21‑8‑1997, though could not be considered for the purposes of bail. However, the same can also not be overlooked. Indeed other aspects of the applicant having been arrested earlier in point of time with a delay of nine days in the lodging of the F.I.R., the affidavit of the abductee as well as an application reflecting illegal arrest of the appellant by the police on account of enmity. These are the considerations which would warrant further inquiry into the matter as contemplated by subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned State Counsel has very fairly conceded to the grant of bail. Consequently, this application is allowed and the applicant is granted bail in this case on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A‑185/K Bail granted.