2017 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Hassan Ali Shah petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 36/14, dated 20.01.2014 registered at Police Station Chak Jhumra, Faisalabad in respect of offences under sections 365-13/376/ 380/411, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record with their able assistance it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. There is a delay of three months in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant and the same prima facie shows that the FIR has been chalked out in this case after due deliberations and consultations. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are that he has abducted sister of the complainant namely Mst. Akhtar Bano along with valuable articles for committing Zina with her but perusal of Writ Petition No. 10731 of 2014 appended with this petition as Annexure-F shows that the alleged abductee has contracted marriage with the petitioner of her own free will and volition and she has filed above mentioned writ petition for quashing of instant FIR. She had also filed petition under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned ex-officio Justice of Peace, Chiniot wherein she had duly acknowledged her marriage with the petitioner. Nikah Nama of the petitioner with alleged abductee Mst. Akhtar Bano is also appended with this petition as Annexure-E which also falsify the story mentioned in the FIR. It may not be out of place to point here that when the alleged abductee Mst. Akhtar Bano came to her parents she has opted to file suit for jactitation of marriage in a learned Family Court, Faisalabad which fact prima facie establish factum of Nikah of alleged abductee Mst. Akhtar Bano with the petitioner. In the backdrop of above narrated circumstances it seems that a matrimonial issue is being transformed into criminal case by the complainant to satisfy his vengeance; hence, the question whether the abductee/victim has actually been abducted by the petitioners or she has herself left the house of her parents and contracted marriage with him shall be determined by the learned Family Judge who has already taken cognizance of the matter which is proper forum. Reliance can easily be placed on the case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others (PLD 1984 SC 95). In view of above narrated circumstances a possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that the petitioner has been involved by the complainant in this case under the heat of prevailing animosity between the parties. The petitioner is previous non-convict, he is behind the bars since 27.06.2015, investigation of this case is complete, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the court, charge has been framed, thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars. A person cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. I may observe here that grant of bail does not mean that accused is acquitted of the charge rather it is only a change of custody from State to surety.

3. For what has been discussed above, the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. JK/H-22/L Bail granted.