2018 PLP 170 (YLRN)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The allegation against the petitioner, Muhammad Asif as per FIR No.152/17, dated 5.4.2017, under section 365-B, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Midh Ranjha, Sargodha, is that he and his co-accused forcibly abducted Imtiaz Bibi, a divorced niece of Ghanwata (complainant) at 9.00 a.m. on 9.1.2017 from the fields, where she had gone to ease herself; the accused drove away the abductee toward Ranjha Chowk; the occurrence was witnessed by Ghulam Ali and Maula Bakhsh, who informed the complainant about the incident.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the alleged abductee, as per her own statement under section 161, Cr.P.C, returned to her house on 11.3.2017, but she joined the investigation on 16.4.2017, more than a month thereafter, and offered no explanation in this regard. She contended before the I.O. that she had been abducted by Muhammad Asif etc. and taken to some unknown place at Sargodha, where Asif accused repeatedly committed rape on her. She, however, refused to have herself medically examined. In this statement, she did not say it at all, if she had married Muhammad Asif accused or not. In her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., recorded on 22.4.2017, she contended that she had been abducted by Muhammad Asif (petitioner) and Ikram, who took her to Sargodha and confined her in a room, where they both committed Zina with her. She was cross-examined by the accused and she refuted the allegation that she had wedded four persons previously and admitted it evasively, that she had married Muhammad Asif accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner tendered four different Nikahnamas to establish polygamous past of the alleged abductee with the emphasis that she showed herself a virgin on each occasion. Learned counsel for the complainant saw these documents and looked inquisitively into the eyes of the complainant, standing alongside him and hesitantly admitted that Imtiaz Bibi had been married to those persons, but he could not verify or deny that she had invariably shown herself a virgin. The learned counsel, however, admitted the said fact as correct, when he perused the Nikahnamas minutely. It was pointed out by the petitioner's learned counsel that all of previous ventures of the alleged abductee were runaway affairs, which could not be ably denied by the other side.

3. It transpired during pendency of this bail application that the alleged abductee had solemnized Nikah with Muhammad Asif (petitioner) on 27.12.2016, about twelve (12) days before the alleged occurrence and about three and a half months before registration of the instant FIR. The Investigating Officer verified entries of Nikahnama, showing marriage between Imtiaz Bibi and Muhammad Asif (petitioner) vide case-diary dated 20.5.2017. The Nikah Khawan, Habib Ullah and secretary, union council concerned, Tariq Mehmood joined the investigation on 20.5.2017 and endorsed factum of marriage and registration of the Nikahnama. The alleged abductee has not challenged veracity and genuineness of Nikahnama before any court of law so far. At one stage, she filed a private complaint under section 506, P.P.C. against the complainant Ghanwata and another before a learned magistrate at Gujjar Khan, wherein she rendered a statement on 27.12.2016 with the contention that, being sui juris, she had contracted marriage with Muhammad Asif (petitioner) of her free will and accord and that nobody had abducted her against her wishes. She filed a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and four others, whereby she entirely changed the tenor of incident of her abduction by contending that she was near a Government Primary School at about 9.00 a.m. on 5.1.2017, when she was abducted by the respondent-accused, who took her to Sargodha, where Muhammad Asif coerced her to marry him and virtually did it so, whereafter he confined her in a house for about two months and then he pronounced Talaq and sold her to one Mushtaq, who too forcibly contracted Nikah with her. Interestingly, she did not level the allegation of Zina against the petitioner then. The date of her alleged abduction, as given it the FIR, is 9.1.2017 and not 5.1.2017, as shown in the mentioned petition. Her marriage with Mushtaq, as per Nikahnama, took place on 1.12.2016, twenty six (26) days before she contracted Nikah with the petitioner on 27.12.2016, hence, her contention of marrying Mushtaq two months after her Nikah with the petitioner is altogether false. She appeared to be a person of dubious character, hence, chances are little that she had been abducted and coerced by the petitioner to marry him. The probability cannot be ruled out that the petitioner may have been falsely involved in this case due to some malice or ulterior motives of the complainant.

4. Therefore, this application is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 28.4.2017 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. HBT/M-20/L Bail confirmed.