2000 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail which later on was confirmed had been sought to be cancelled by complainant on ground that essential conditions for grant of bail to accused had not been observed by Trial Court‑‑‑Alleged abductee who was a major being 18 years' old in her statement made under S.164, Cr.P.C. had asserted that she was not abducted by anyone, but she being sui juris had married with accused with her own consent‑‑‑Case against accused was not fit for cancellation of bail granted by Trial Court in view of said statement of alleged abductee and in presence of Nikahnama of spouses. PLD 1984 SC 192; PLD 1998 SC 97; PLD 1997 SC 545 and 2000 PCr.LJ 284 ref. ORDER This is an application for cancellation of bail of respondents Nos.2 to 8 granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat vide order, dated 24‑3‑2000 in Case F.I.R. No.126, dated 26‑2‑2000 for an offence under section 11 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979, registered at Police Station Kunjah,, Tehsil and District Gujrat on the complaint of Mst. Irshad Bano alleging that respondents Nos.2 to 8 had abducted the daughter of the complainant‑petitioner namely Mst. Samina Qaisra early in the morning on 16‑2‑2000 with high‑handedness and forcibly while the accused persons were armed with fire‑arms and‑they committed this heinous offence.

2. Respondents Nos.2 to 8 applied for pre‑arrest bail which was confirmed on 24‑3‑2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. It is stated that during the investigation section 380, P.P.C. was added and that the petitioner in view of the contents of the F.I.R. requests that section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance should be added which was not added. Thereafter, he approached to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who also declined and he filed Writ Petition No.4503 of 2000 which was ultimately dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of respondents Nos.2 to 5 namely Riaz, Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Rasheed and Muhammad Nadeem sons of Muhammad Akram on the ground that it was a pre‑arrest bail and that essential conditions for the grant of such bail as laid down by their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 1984 SC 192 and PLD 1998 SC 97 have not been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel submitted that the gist of those decision of apex Court was that the mala fides for registration of the case with ulterior motive particularly on the part of police and false victimization should have been shown and established by accused for the grant of pre‑arrest bail and that nothing such has come on record in the instant case. Learned counsel submitted that in this case a minor girl was abducted in a very objectionable and unreasonable way and very heinous methods have been adopted for abduction of the said girl while it is admitted by the accused persons that they chased her when she was going to school or college ignoring the moral, values of the society and the social and Islamic principles. It is also submitted that the bail before arrest is meant for honourables, dignified, gentlemen and good citizens of the society and is not meant for those persons who commit mean and heinous offences like the one committed in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of PLD 1997 SC 545 and also 2000 PCr.LJ 284, the explanation for false implication should be very plausible and shall appeal to the reason whereas both these things were missing in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the whole argument of the learned Additional Sessions Judge could be of use in a bail after the arrest and not in a bail before arrest case. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have been impressed from extraneous circumstances and that the tentative assessment should have been only of the facts that has come on record.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable for the reasons that in that case the abductee was a minor and in the instant case the abductee as per contents of the F.I.R. is a major being 18 years old which fact is further fortified from admission that she is F.A. and that it was not a case of abduction. She had married of her own accord with the accused and that circumstances of the alleged abduction are very informal as the mother was divorced by the father who wanted to marry himself by giving hand of the alleged abductee to those from whom he has asked for his own marriage and that this was done after she had conducted her marriage with Riaz. The said Riaz has also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights where the alleged abductee has been appeared before the learned Civil Judge and wilfully made statement that she wanted to go to the house of her husband and she also filed a complaint against her father etc. in which she deposed that she is sui juris and wanted to marry Riaz with her own consent and that her marriage had been duly solemnized and that the Nikah was duly registered and that there was no abduction. On the last date she was examined by Ilaqa Magistrate and she made her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. that she was not abducted by anyone. She married herself with Riaz and that she has not stolen anything from the house of her father, and that all the allegations against her are false frivolous and that she wanted to lead her matrimonial life and that there was no question of mala fide on the part of police.

5. Learned counsel for the State in his argument submitted that t e statement of the abductee was recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. in which she complained that 15/16 Tolas of gold was taken away by the accused and also Rs.30,000 in cash and that these ornament and the amount is yet to be recovered.

6. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the divorce of the mother of the abductee had taken place 14 years back and thereafter, the said lady contracted two more marriages and that there was no question of any ornament being in the possession previous husband from where those could be stolen.

7. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.

8. In view of the statement of abductee, the pendency of the suit with the Family Judge regarding the restitution of conjugal rights, the presence of Nikahnama to which both the spouses are admitting as correct, it is not a fit case for cancellation of bail of respondents Nos.2 to

8. As such this petition g has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./I‑13/L Petition dismissed.