2006 PLP 1407 (MLD)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C. Liaquat Ali petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.558, dated 19-12-2005, registered under section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station City Pakpattan Sharif on the application of Muhammad Abbas.

2. The brief allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with rifle along with Saif armed with gun .12 bore double barrel, Muhammad Altai armed with pistol .30 bore and Munir Ahmad armed with pistol .30 bore had abducted Mst. Kubra sister of the complainant by force, who had not been recovered so far.

3. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged to be that Munir and Ahaf, who are maternal cousins of the complainant were nor given the land which was inherited by their mother and due to this grudge, they had abducted Mst. Kubra sister of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners is a councillor and Mst. Kubra had some dispute over the inherited land with the complainant who is her real brother and she came to the petitioner, who had decided the matter in favour of Mst. Kubra and due to this grudge he has been falsely involved in the present case; that Mst. Kubra has also filed a private complaint under section 506/34, P.P.C. against the complainant and others before the learned Ilaga Magistrate Pindi Gheb where she also got recorded her statement as P.W.l, which belies the allegation of her abduction; that mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant regarding false implication of the petitioner is crystal clear as the petitioner had no concern with the alleged abduction of Mst. Kubra.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application on the ground that case was registered on 19-12-2005, but the petitioner remained fugitive from justice and so far Mst. Kubra has not been recovered or produced before the police, that unless Mst. Kubra is recovered it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case when the complainant and the eye-witnesses had no previous enmity against him.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. 7.? The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with the specific role that he along with the co-accused while variously armed with fire-arms had abducted Mst. Kubra, sister of the complainant, who had not been recovered or produced before the Investigating Officer so far, which is a heinous offence. According to the police officer present with the record, the petitioner so far has not joined the investigation even after the grant of ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court. The conduct of the petitioner is that he even did not appear before the Court of first instance at the time of final hearing after the grant of interim bail. Mere filing of private complaint by the alleged abductee is not sufficient to declare that she is leading an independent life and was not abducted as claimed by the complainant in the impugned F.I.R. because perusal of her alleged statement recorded before the learned Magistrate Section-30, Pindi Gheb on 2-1-2006, shows that she is very much in the knowledge of registration of the instant case, but why she is not being produced before the police to narrate the true story and this circumstances goes against the accused, who are still at large, that she is in their custody. Mere contention of the learned counsel that earlier the petitioner being a councillor had made decision in favour of Mst. Kubra and against the complainant can hardly be a reason for his false implication in this case of heinous nature regarding the abduction of the said lady when no proof of the said decision is available with the learned counsel. On the other hand, there is evidence on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner may hamper the investigation as recovery of the alleged abductee is still to be effected. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he has no regard for the law or the Courts as he had not joined the investigation so far and absented from the Court of first instance when the bail petition was fixed for final hearing while the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and such-like accused cannot be benefited therewith. I don't find it a fit case for grant of bail before arrest and this petition is dismissed having no merits. H.B.T./L-14/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.