2012 PLP 1245 (YLR)

SALMAN HAMID, J.

Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. Through this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. cancellation of bail has been sought, which was granted by this Court in terms of order dated 14-9-2011 in the F.I.R No.229 of 2011, under sections 365-B and 34, P.P.C. of Police Station New Karachi Industrial Area. I. In a nutshell the facts deducible from the F.I.R are that the accused/ respondent No.1 contracted marriage with Rabia, daughter of the applicant/ complainant and she also executed; freewill affidavit on 11-6-2011 she being sui juris. It appears that after such marriage, present F.I.R was registered and the accused/ respondent No.1 was arrested. Thereafter Rabia, wife of the accused/respondent No.1, recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., wherein she altogether stated a different story than what was narrated by the complainant himself in the F.I.R.. II. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that after obtaining bail the respondent No.1 is misusing the same and is extending threats to the complainant. In this regard he relied upon the case of Nazar Masih v. Yaqoob Masih and others reported as 2002 PCr.LJ 662 and asserted that the bail be cancelled. It was also contended by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of grant of bail on 14-9-2011 this court did not appreciate the fact that the daughter of complainant namely Rabia had stated that she was married to the respondent No.1 after being intoxicated and she signed Nikahnama and executed freewill affidavit in such state of intoxication. III. Heard learned counsel. It would be evident that the complainant had stated that accused/respondent No.1 abducted and married Rabia, however Rabia implicated as many as six other persons namely the respondent No.1, Shahzad, Taja, Altaf Abro and mother and father of the respondent No.1. Thereafter in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. recorded after three days Rabia stated altogether a different story and only implicated the respondent No.1, his father and mother than what was stated in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Looking at these inconsistencies viz contradiction in the F.I.R., 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements and also appreciating that prima facie Rabia got married with the accused/respondent No.1 after executing freewill affidavit dated 11-6-2011 and that she thereafter having been taken by her parents got intimidated and kept changing her statement and the bail was granted by exercising discretion. It is difficult to believe that the affidavit of freewill was executed in state of intoxication as it was before the court concerned where she was also examined by such court. As far as the allegation of intimidation is concerned, nothing was brought on record to substantiate the same and it seems that allegation for the sake of it has been raised. In such view of the matter the case of Nazar Masih was not applicable. Looking at such aspects of the matter the bail that was granted, require to interference and, therefore, this application for cancellation is found to be meritless and is hereby dismissed. M.W.A./A-31/K Application dismissed.