2002 PLP 1298 (MLD)

The facts leading to the present application for bail are that a case under sections 11/16, Offence of Zina (Hudood Ordinance), 1979 read with section 109, P.P.C. has been registered against the applicants/accused at Police Station Sehwan vide Crime No.5 of 2002. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed by Muhammad Usman father of the alleged abductee in his F.I.R. dated 16‑1‑2002 are reproduced here-in-below: -‑‑ The complaint is that I am labourer and is residing with my family members on the abovementioned address. Ghulam Nabi son of Haji Ayoub Lakho resident of near Daulatpur and Ghulam Muhammad son of Jeeal Lakho resident of Sehwan are my caste fellow. We are on visiting terms with each other. About four months at night time I and my son Peeral and my wife Mst. Marvi and daughter Hamida aged 30‑31 years wife of Rabia Lakho were sitting in the house. The electric bulb was on, when at about 10‑00 p.m. (night) Ghulam Nabi and Ghulam Muhammad Lakho alongwith four unknown persons came inside our house. Ghulam Nabi and Ghulam Muhammad were armed with pistols and the identified persons were armed with Lathis. They immediately on entering the house asked us on the point of weapons to keep quite. Accused Ghulam Nabi Lakho caught hold my daughter from her arms and at the point of weapons took her away outside the house. My daughter raised cries. Due to fear of the weapons we remained silent. All the above-said accused forcibly took Hamida out of the house and put her in the car which was parked outside and abducted her. Many times, I approached Ghulam Nabi and Ghulam Muhammad for restoration of Hamida but they kept me on false hopes. Thereafter I went to Haji Ayoub Lakho, the father of accused Ghulam Nabi he disclosed that his son Ghulam Nabi has brought their girl Hamida in the house and he will get her restored to us. He also kept us on hopes. Now he has refused to return my daughter Mst. Hamida. Now, I have come and complain that accused Ghulam Nabi and Ghulam Muhammad Lakho and other four unidentified persons, who were seen by me and my abovenamed witnesses clearly on the light of bulb and we can identify them again on seeing them. They have abducted my daughter with the connivance of Haji Ayub Lakho with intention to commit Zina with her. I complain. Investigation be made in the matter. The applicants/.accused applied for bail before the trial Court but their bail plea was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 30‑1‑2002 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/accused, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged abductee i.e. victim and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Additional Advocate‑General for the State. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged abductee as well as on behalf of the State conceded to the confirmation of bail. The perusal of material placed on record shows that prior to the registration of present F.I.R., an identical F.I.R. bearing No.41 of 2001 was lodged by Muhammad Peeral brother of the alleged abductee against some different persons. During the course of investigation the alleged abductee Mst. Hameeda was produced before the Magistrate for purpose of 164, Cr.P.C. statement. She refuted the allegations made in the F.I.R. lodged by her brother and stated that she was not kidnapped or abducted. Thereafter the present report was lodged by‑ her father Usman against the applicants/accused. The F.I.R. in question is belated by four months whereas police station is situated at the distance of one furlong from the alleged scene of offence. No plausible explanation with regard to this inordinate delay has been given by the prosecution. The alleged abductee Mst. Hameeda daughter of the complainant has filed Suit No.94 of 2001 for dissolution of marriage against her husband and same is sub judice in the Court of learned 1st Extra Joint Civil Judge and Family Judge, Hyderabad. In support of her application under section 5 read with section 20, C.P.C, she has belied the assertions made in the F.I.R. lodged against the applicants/accused and she has also levelled certain allegations against her father. The alleged abductee has also got an article published in daily "Kawish", Hyderabad dated 11‑10‑2001 against her parents and husband. She has stated in the article that on 29‑8‑2001 she was divorced by her husband. She was living with her parents who proved to be of greedy nature and wanted to dispose of her against the monetary consideration, therefore, she left their house and is shifted to Kalhora Colony, Hyderabad, of her own free‑will. Her parents in connivance with her previous husband Rabdino are harassing her by filing false cases. Looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, interim bail already granted to the applicants/accused is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The application stands disposed of. N.H.Q./G‑93/K Bail allowed.