P L D 2006 Karachi 472 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.

By this application learned counsel for the applicant Mir Hassan has sought bail in Crime No.73 of 2004 of Police Station Waleed for an offence under sections 11/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 25-8-2004 along with his brothers Daman Ali and Ashiq Ali were present at their house when at about 2030 hours three persons entered into the house, who were armed with pistols, out of them Riaz Hussain and Mir Hassan were identified while third one was unknown to the complainant party. It is further case in the FIR. that accused Riaz caught the arm of his daughter Sajida and went away towards the street. Complainant party chased them in the street where accused Irfan empty-handed and another unidentified person armed with pistol were also standing. They all boarded in a Yellow Taxi and left the scene of offence towards northern direction. After registration of F.I.R. the investigation followed and in due course the Challan of case was submitted before the competent Court of law showing the present applicant absconder. On 25-10-2004 applicant voluntarily surrendered himself before learned Sessions Judge, Larkana for pre-arrest bail which was transferred to learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana where his bail plea was declined on 30-10-2004 which is impugned before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material brought on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case against his client is false and he has been implicated in the background of enmity and suspicion. The F.I.R. is lodged with inordinate delay of 12 days which is not plausibly explained and the distance between the P.S. and Wardat is two furlong; as per FIR. applicant was present at the Wardat but no overt act is attributed to him in the commission of offence. The 161, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses are recorded after about seven days of occurrence. There is also conflict between ocular version, medical evidence and 164, Cr.P.C. statement of abductee as according to medical certificate of abductee Mst. Sajida, no any external injury/marks of violence or mark of resistance on any part is found on the person of abductee girl and the M.O. has opined that no sign of recent rape is found. Learned counsel has further contended that in fact Mst. Sajida left her house at her free-will and got married with Ghulam Shabir, her relative, such Nikanama is also brought on record. He has also pointed out to the affidavit of alleged abductee Mst. Sajida before Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Garhi Khairo which is brought on record, in which she has stated that whereas her parents want to forcibly marry her with an old man therefore, she has left her house at her own free-will in three clothes and wants to marry with her fiance Ghulam Shabir Jaghirani. Learned counsel has also brought on record such press clipping of daily Kawish in which Mst. Sajida and Ghulam Shabir are stated to have contracted marriage. Learned counsel also submits that section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of alleged abductee was recorded after almost 18 days, and the 164, Cr.P.C. statement of Mst. Sajida is result of coercion and pressure upon her at the hands of complainant party in which various conflicts arise to the extent that accused Riaz, Mir Hassan and Irfan entered the house who were armed with guns and pistols while case of complainant is that Riaz, Mir Hassan and an unknown person entered into house who were armed with pistols while Irfan was standing besides Yellow. Cab outside the house. On all these scores, he has submitted that this is a case of two versions and call for further inquiry and it is a fit case wherein bail can be granted to the applicant. Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that name of accused appears in the F.I.R., and the abductee Mst, Sajida has appeared before Judicial Magistrate and fully implicated the present applicant in the commission of crime therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. Learned State Counsel in view of the above submissions has raised no objection of the bail is granted to the applicant. For what it has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that learned counsel for the applicant has raised extensive grounds making the case of prosecution highly doubtful and one of further enquiry and thus has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted to the applicant provided he furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No.768 of 2004 stands disposed of. H.B.T./M-72/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail gratned.