1999 PLP 1586 (MLD)

Karim-ud-Din Khilji for the Petitioners. Khalid Ikram Khatana for the Complainant. Rafaqat Ali Kahloon for the State. Both the petitioners stand charged under sections 324-452, 34, P.P.C. and 10/11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979 vide F.I.R. No.70/98 dated 19-2-1998 registered at P.S. Shorkot District Jhang.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 19-2-1998 at about 3.00 a.m. Mst. Farhat Bibi knocked at the door upon which Mst. Sakina Bibi mother of complainant got up and enquired, as to who was at the door, upon which Mst. Farhat Bibi told her mother that she was having some pain in the abdomen. Her mother opened the door. As soon as door was opened Muhammad Latif and Anwaar armed with Surya, Altaf alias Tipu armed with 30 bore pistol and Mst. Farhat trespassed in the house and caught hold of Mst. Shamim Akhtar who was asleep and tried to take her out. The complainant Muhammad Aslam and her mother Mst. Sakina Bibi tried to rescue Mst. Shamim Akhtar from them. Altaf Hussain aimed his pistol upon them and Muhammad Latif and Anwar started causing Surya blows to Masood. The complainant and others raised cries upon which Sikandar and Bilal were attracted. They also tried to rescue Mst. Shamim Akhtar but Altaf and other issued threats of dire consequences and on pistol point made Mst. Shamim Akhtar to accompany them and took her to Bus stand where they boarded a Bus of Shalimar Company bound for Multan. The complainant and others collected on the Adda and requested the driver to stop bus in front of Police Station, as Mst. Shamim Akhtar was being abducted. Rab Nawaz Constable and Ayyub H.C. travelling in. the same Bus also requested the driver to stop the Bus. However Altaf Hussain caused harassment by firing with his pistol and refrained the driver from stopping Bus in front of the Police Station. Ayub Constable tried to catch hold Altaf Hussain who fired at him but it missed. In the meanwhile Muhammad Ayyub fired ten shots with his rifle and finally succeeded in apprehending the culprits and got Mst. Shamim Akhtar rescued from them. Hence this F.I.R.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners alongwith others had gone into the house of the complainant, not for the purpose of abduction of Mst. Shamim Akhtar but in connection with marriage of Mst. Shamim Akhtar with Altaf Hussain as per agreement dated 5-3-1996 executed between the parties, according to which her hand was to be given within a period of two years of said agreement in lieu of marriage of Mst. Farhat Bibi with Muhammad Akram, brother of Muhammad Aslant complainant, that prosecution version stands falsified by the fact that no empty of pistol or rifle was recovered from the spot, though as many as 11 shots are said to have been fired from the pistol and rifle of Altaf Hussain accused and Muhammad Ayub Constable, that Muhammad Latif is an aged person and his case is covered under the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C., that this fact coupled with the fact that petitioners are in judicial lock up since 19-2-1998 makes the case of the petitioners open for further inquiry.

4. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State. He submits that F.I.R. has been lodged promptly, petitioners have been nominated in the F.I.R., specific role is attributed to each of them, both the petitioners are daughter and father respectively and the entire occurrence revolves around the part played by Mst. Farhat Bibi, that Muhammad Latif is aged 50 years and does not fall within the ambit of infirm and sick persons, that injuries of Muhammad Latif and Anwar, prove their participation in the occurrence, that offence under sections 10 and 11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and under section 452, P.P.C. fall within the prohibitory clause of section 49, Cr.P.C.

5. Both the petitioners Mst. Farhat Bibi and Muhammad Latif alongwith Anwar and Altaf Hussain stand charged under sections 324, 452, 34 P P.C. read. with sections 10 and 11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The presence of the petitioners at the place of occurrence has not been denied. Their contention is that they had contacted the complainant for the marriage of Mst. Shamim in accordance with agreement dated 5-3-1996 whereby Muhammad Aslam complainant had agreed to give the hand of Mst. Shamim Akhtar for Altaf Hussain in lieu of marriage of Mst. Farhat Bibi with Muhammad Akram, brother of Muhammad Aslam complainant. There is no denial of this execution of agreement on the part of complainant. It appears that some misunderstanding developed between the parties on that score. The way in which occurrence is said to have take place is not borne out from record as no empty of any pistol or rifle was recovered from the spot. Had as many as 11 shots been fired, at least some empties must have been secured from the spot. The absence of any such empty makes the case of the petitioners open for further enquiry. Both the petitioners are daughter and father and are in jail since 19-2-1998. All these fact make the case of the petitioners open for further inquiry. Accordingly petition is accepted and they are admitted to bail subjected to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Twenty thousands only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./F-60/L Bail granted