2013 PLP 1825 (YLR)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Ashfaq petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 302/12, dated 2-10-2012 registered at Police Station Kaliana, District Pakpattan Sharif in respect of an offence under section 376, P.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives after joining hands with the local police. There is a delay of one month and twelve days in registration of F.I.R. which has not been explained by the complainant. The alleged abductee-victim Mst. Farwa Bibi being sui juris has contracted marriage with the petitioner of her free will and volition and against the will of her parents on 21-8-2012 but later on she was returned through Punchayat and thereafter she has taken somersault and has involved the present petitioner in this case. The petitioner has committed no offence: The petitioner is behind the bars since 21-10-2012, he is previous non-convict, never involved in any case, investigation qua him is complete, his person is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and specific role of abducting Mst. Farwa Bibi is attributed to him. The alleged abductee/ victim has got recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically levelled allegation of committing Zina with her against the petitioner. The alleged abductee has also got herself medically examined and the Medico-legal Certificate also corroborates her stance. Father of the petitioner namely Mushtaq has also sworn an affidavit to the effect that the present petitioner is fully involved in this case and he is the main accused. The alleged abductee had also got recorded her statement in a petition filed by the petitioner under section 491, Cr.P.C. in which she had categorically stated that she has not contracted Nikah with the petitioner. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has been found involved. There is ample evidence in shape of statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. got recorded by the prosecution witnesses, during the investigation of this case. There is absolutely no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of one month and twelve days in registration of the F.I.R. which has not been explained by the complainant. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 6-2-2013 the Pairvi officer present in the Court was directed to get the Nikah Nama of the alleged abductee with the petitioner verified from the concerned quarter and today he has stated that he duly verified the Nikah Nama and the same has been found correct. Admittedly the alleged abductee/victim is a grown-up lady of 18/19 years of age and her Nikah Nama is on record, thus, possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that a matrimonial issued has been converted into criminal case due to family honour. It is also an admitted fact that the Nikah Nama in this case has not yet been challenged by the complainant party before any forum. It is a common practice in our society that in such like cases if a girl is returned to her family she takes sommersault and used to involve her husband with whom she had contracted marriage of her own free consent and will and against the will of her parents. Although the police have declared the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence yet it is settled principle that ipse dixit of police is not binding upon the Courts of law. It is intriguing to note that at one hand the police have declared the petitioner guilty of the offence in this case but on the other hand it had got the Nikahnama verified from the concerned quarter which had been found correct, thus, this shows that the prosecution itself has two opinions and which opinion is correct, is to be seen by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. Mere involvement in a heinous offence by itself does not constitute any ground to refuse bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled to the concession of bail. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 21-10-2012 and since then he is behind the bars, the investigation qua him is complete, he is previous non-convict, never involved in any case, his person is no more required by the police for further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

5. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner is called for further inquiry into his guilt covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one, surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. AG/A-52/L Bail granted.