2014 PLP 2642 (YLR)

MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.

The petitioners, seek pre-arrest bail in a criminal case F.I.R. No. 232 dated 3-7-2013 registered under sections 496-A and 376, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Mailsi, District Vehari.

2. The case was registered at the instance of Bashir Ahmad son of Jam Haji, who alleged that four accused, nominated in the F.I.R. along with an unknown person came to his house and persuaded his daughter-in-law, namely, Mst. Kiran Bibi to accompany them so that she might inquire after her father, who was reported to be ill. It was further alleged by the complainant that the accused abducted her daughter-in-law with a view to subjecting her to Zina. The accused achieved their nefarious design at gun point.

3. It was vociferously and forcibly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the accused petitioners did not find mention in the F.I.R. negating the story narrated therein. The fact that Mst. Kiran Bibi was produced before the police by the complainant himself on 8-7-2013 deals a serious blow to the case of the prosecution. In other words, it disproved the allegation against the petitioners that they were involved in her abduction. In order to show that the petitioners were falsely implicated, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Ijaz Ahmad, the accused nominated in the F.I.R. is the real brother of the petitioners. However, the afore-mentioned Ijaz Ahmad was deliberately shown to be son of Muhammad Ibrahim in the F.I.R. so as to befuddle every-body around. Likewise, Mst. Shamshad Mai, one of the co-accused nominated in the F.I.R. is the wife of their elder brother.

4. On the other hand, learned APG vehemently opposed the grant of post-arrest bail, contending that the petitioners were nominated in the F.I.R., and the alleged abductee Mst. Kiran Bibi had implicated the petitioners in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.-G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record.

6. When questioned as to whether the statement of the alleged abductee, Mst. Kiran was got recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., learned APG, after consulting the record, answered in the negative. He was fair enough to bring it to the notice of the Court that when the alleged abductee was produced before the learned Magistrate for getting her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 31-7-2013, she refused to make any statement before him, asserting that her statement already recorded by the police on 8-7-2013 might suffice. On a further query, it was confirmed by the I.O. as well as learned APG that no DNA test was carried out, which might have corroborated the version of the abductee.

7. For what has been discussed above, the story of the prosecution appears to be riddled with holes. There are certain features of the case which call for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. It is mind-boggling that when the complainant knew the name of the real brother of the petitioner and implicated him by name, what prevented him from making mention of the petitioners in the F.I.R. It seems that the complainant has cast the net wide to implicate as many persons of the very same family as possible. The mala fide of the complainant floats on the surface of the record. In the circumstances, the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by this Court on 22-10-2013 is hereby confirmed, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MH/M-50/L Bail granted.