2000 PLP 981 (MLD)

Arshad Lodhi, Asst. A.‑G. for the State The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused Muhammad Parvez is facing trial in a case under section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 before learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), which arose out of F.I.R. No.407 of 1998 of Police Station Nazimabad, Karachi. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Salim Rehmat on 9‑12‑1998 are that he is scavenger. His sister Parveen Neveed aged about 24 years was living with her husband in Essa Nagri. On 7‑11‑1998 his father brought Mst. Parveen at his house situated at Mujahid Colony Nazimabad Karachi. On that day at about 4‑00 p.m. his sister Parveen went out to purchase vegetables. Complainant and his father on hearing commotion went out and saw that Parvez Mohan, Safdar Hayat, Sharaf, Jamil, Boinz Phillips alias Raja after putting his sister in Yellow cab were taking her away. They followed the culprit but culprits succeeded in running away. They remained in search of abductee but they could not get any Clue and ultimately lodged the report. After usual investigation applicant/accused was sent up to stand. The applicant/accused applied for the bail before the trial Court but it was declined by impugned order, dated 3‑2‑1999. I have heard 'he learned counsel for the applicant accused and Mr. Arshad Lodhi learned Assistant Advocate‑General on behalf of the State. The latter conceded to the grant of bail. The perusal of material placed on record shows that the F.I.R. is delayed by about 32 days and prima facie no plausible explanation with regard to this inordinate delay has been given by the prosecution. The alleged incident occurred during day time at about 4‑00 p.m. in a thickly populated area whereas the police station is situated at a distance of about two kilometres. The names of the culprits were known. In the circumstances keeping mum for such a considerable period reflects upon the credenfiales of prosecution case. It was stated by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and not controverted by the learned State counsel that the alleged abductee 'has not implicated the applicant/accused in her 164, Cr.P.C. statement as her abductor. The material placed on record shown that applicant/accused and alleged abductee embraced Islam and they got married subsequently. The Nikahnama shows that the alleged abductee disclosed herself as unmarried and marriage was registered by the Nikah Registrar. The upshot of the above discussion is that case necessitates further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and the applicant/accused is entitled to bail. Consequently applicant/accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. By my short order dated 4‑3‑1999 bail was granted to the applicant/accused and above are the detailed reasons for the same.