2011 PLP 1529 (MLD)

SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.

Through the instant petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, the petitioner Mst. Ghulam Bibi seeks the cancellation of bail granted to respondents-accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paharpur, District D.I.Khan on 1-4-2011 in case F.I.R. No.82 dated 6-3-2011 ,registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. at Police Station Paharpur, District D.I.Khau.

2. The petitioner-complainant reported on 6-3-2011 at 4-00 p.m. to the police at her house that her daughter Mst. Asma Bibi aged about 18 years when came out of her house for easing, she was forcibly, abducted by three unknown persons. She made hue and cry. The complainant stated that she herself witnessed the occurrence when she was busy in fetching water. The murasila was sent to police station for recording of F.I.R. It is worth mentioning that the alleged abductee was recovered on the same day at Mianwali. Thereafter, her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 18-3-2011 and she charged the respondents-accused for her abduction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents-accused are directly charged for commission of the offence. He further contended that on 7-3-2011 the recovery of photographs, CNIC and other material was effected by the police from the possession of the respondent-accused. He contended that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The delay caused in lodging the F.I.R. was satisfactorily explained by the complainant. In this regard, the learned counsel submitted that in such like cases, while deciding the bail application, delay cannot be given that much importance. The learned counsel further submitted that now-a-days the rate of such like offences has been accelerated and its victims are the peaceful and law abiding citizens of the State, therefore, this practice may be dealt with heavy hand.

4. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused contended that for cancellation of bail, strong and exceptional grounds are required to be proved by the complainant which are missing. He further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing bail, exercised his discretion within the four corners of law and no illegality, irregularity or miscarriage of justice has been committed.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record.

6. Being the matter pertaining to the cancellation of bail of the respondents, is to be considered without touching the merits of the case. The tentative assessment of the available material reveals that the abductee has disclosed the names-of the respondents in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. who have participated in the alleged occurrence. It is strange enough that her mother, despite noticing the accused, did not name them in her report which she lodged after the delay of 10-1/2 hours. The same is considered as one of the circumstance while allowing the bail. She has not hinted upon that how the police came to know about the occurrence and recorded her report at her house. It was the prime duty of the complainant to immediately inform the police by filing report in Police Station but for the reasons best known to her, she kept on waiting for arrival of police for recording the detail of the occurrence at her house. It is also discernable from the record that his son namely Nazim Hussain was present there in the house and he neither resisted the abduction of her sister nor immediately reported the matter to police. However, he was informed 2/3 hours before lodging the report but those facts have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Besides, the abductee has not charged the respondents-accused for commission of Zina. According to medical report, she has not been found as virgin. No witness from the place of recovery of the abductee was examined in order to testify the factum of recovery of abductee. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. is also considered. The previous enmity existed between the, parties. In view of the above circumstances, this is the case of further inquiry and the respondents-accused were legally entitled for their enlargement on bail.

7. Be that as it may, the requirements of cancellation of bail have not been satisfied by the petitioner-complainant. He has yet to prove that the allegations levelled by him against the respondents-accused are based on truth. Nothing is available on record which could be considered as a valid and genuine ground for cancellation of the bail. No proof has been furnished so as to give legal cover to the stance of the petitioner-complainant about extending threats to him or tampering with the evidence. No record pertaining to previous involvement of respondents-accused in similar offence has been produced or alleged in the petition. The grounds for grant of bail and its cancellation are quite different and distinct in nature. However, the petitioner complainant miserably failed to substantiate her request by means of any material on record. Moreso, I could not find that the order is perverse on the face of it and has been passed in violation of the principle for grant of bail or it is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Reliance may be placed on the cases tilted The State/Anti-Narcotic through Director General v. Rafiq Ahmad Channa (2010 SCMR 580) and Rabnawaz v. Gul Ahmad Khan and another 2010 PCr.LJ 905).

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the instant petition for cancellation of bail which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./191/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.