2004 PLP 1159 (YLR)

Akber Ali Dahar for the Complainant. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State. It is alleged that on 4-11-2003 an unmarried girl Mst. Shakeela aged about 13/14 years was abducted with intention to subject her to Zina. According to F.I.R. accused Khadim Hussain used to reside in front of the house of complainant `Walidad. Co-accused Khadim Hussain's mother Pannah Khatoon often visited them. Even on previous day in the afternoon she came there and sat on a cot with Mst. Shakeela and had a talk with her. On the day of incident at 5-00 a. m. complainant opened the door and got out for offering Fajer Prayers in the mosque, leaving the door open. When he returned back he noted that Mst. Shakeela was missing. Outside the house he met P.Ws. Muhammad Juman and Abdul Hameed who told him that while they were going towards mosque for offering prayers they saw Shakeela in company of Khadim Hussain, Mumtaz (the applicant), Sikandar and Mst. Pannah. The complainant lodged F.I.R. at Police Station, Darri Larkana Mst. Shakeela was recovered on 13-11-2003. I have heard Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro learned counsel for the applicant who is assisted by Mr. Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State counsel and Mr. Ali Akbar Dahar, learned counsel for the complainant. Mr. Ghanghro advanced the bail plea on the ground that the involvement of applicant Mumtaz in commission of offence calls for further enquiry particularly in the light of statement of Mst. Shakeela recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein, she has not alleged a single word against him. As far the statement of other P.Ws. even from their version, according to Mr. Ghanghro, no active role is made out. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned State counsel did not oppose the bail. Mr. Akbar Ali Dahar learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the victim was not adult and in the commission of the offence role of Mumtaz is clearly spelt out in the light of evidence /statements, P.Ws. Abdul Hameed and Muhammad Juman and the abductee, recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. which indicate that Mumtaz the applicant was present outside the door of the house of complainant from where the offence of abduction started. Although the question of Nikahnama and the alleged marriage Mst. Shakeela was not pressed into service for the purpose of instant bail application, Mr. Dahar, however, urged that even those documents which are otherwise bogus cannot be relied upon since admittedly Shakeela was a minor. With anxious consideration I have examined the material collected during the investigation. The statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. made by Mst. Shakeela in presence of a Magistrate excludes any role of applicant Mumtaz. As regards the witnesses Juman and Abdul Hameed their version is that they had seen Mumtaz also. The victim herself has said that as soon as she got out of the house Mst. Pannah Khatoon caught hold of her while Khadim Hussain applied something intoxicant but she did not allege what role was played by Mumtaz and simply stated that Mumtaz was also present. In her statement under section 161 she has indeed, given further details but has not spoken anything more about Mumtaz. Allegation of Zina is wholly directed against Khadim Hussain. In view of the aforestated circumstances I am convinced that the guilt for Mumtaz calls for further enquiry and as such I am inclined to accept the bail plea. Resultantly, the application is allowed. Mumtaz be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q./M-5/K Bail allowed.