2004 P Cr (PLP)

The petitioner Muhammad Ramzan alias Heera son of Muhammad Yasin seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R, No.8 of 2003 registered under section 11 of the Offence of Z_ina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, at Police Station Barki, Lahore on 13‑1‑2003. The allegation as contained in the F.I.R. was that the complainant Mst. Bashiran Bibi was a resident of the Deh, her husband had died 4/5 years prior 'to registration of the F.I.R. She alongwith her three sons and two daughters including Mst. Razia Bibi the alleged abductee aged about 14 years who was still virgin was living With her; that her neighbour Muhammad Ashraf alias Billu was on visiting terms with the complainant; that about one month prior to the occurrence Mst. Zarina Bibi who was a wife of said Muhammad Ashraf whisked, away Razia daughter of the complainant on some excuse to her house; that Muhammad Ashraf had already established illicit liaison with Razia Bibi; that Mst. Razia Bibi did not return home which caused concern to the complainant and on inquiry they found out from two witnesses' namely Rafique alias Natha.son of Qaim Din and Malik Abdul Ghafoor son of Mehraj Din that they had seen Razia Bibi with Muhammad Ashraf, his wife Mst. Zarina Bibi the present petitioner Muhammad Ramzan alias Hera and Wazir Ali going in a yellow cab towards Lahore. The accused party first promised to return the abductee but subsequently they backed out from their commitment as a result of which the instant F.I.R. was lodged.

3. The petitioner's plea for post‑arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who turned down the said application vide his order, dated 9‑7‑2003. Hence this petition.

4. Ch. Riaz Hussain Bhullar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for post‑arrest bail has argued that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he was accompanying the principal accused namely Ashraf who is still a fugitive from law; that the co‑accused Wazir Ali with exactly the similar role has been granted bail by the learned Court of Session for the reasons that the complainant had exonerated him later on; that the petitioner is in custody for the last more that 10 months and the trial has not yet commenced; that one of the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. namely Rafique has sworn an affidavit exonerating the petitioner. Finally he argued that in view of peculiar circumstances of the case the culpability of the petitioner needs further probe within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. On the other hand Mr. Asif Saeed the learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail plea of the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner is a companion of the principal accused who is still at large that the abductee has yet not been recovered and that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. with a specific role. He further added that the complainant satisfied herself about the innocence of the co -accused whereafter she did not object to the grant of bail to the said co- accused.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

7. There is no denying the fact that the allegations against the petitioner and Wazir Ali co‑accused were absolutely identical. The complainant is not admittedly an eye‑witness of the occurrence and she lodged the F.I.R. on the information which was supplied to her by the said two eye‑witnesses namely Rafique and Abdul Ghafoor. Both the said witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. had saddled the petitioner and his co‑accused Wazir Ali with the same responsibility. It is not understandable as to how the complainant has been satisfied about the innocence of the co‑accused. She cannot be allowed to arrogate to herself the authority' to involve people in serious criminal cases and then exonerate them on her own whims. The case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from his co‑accused Wazir Ali. According to the rule of consistency he is also entitled to the concession of post‑arrest bail as his case is pre‑eminently one of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum 'of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the` learned trial Court. Before parting with this order I would like to add that the observations made herein are tentative in nature and shall not affect the merits of the case. N.H.Q./M‑2471/L Bail allowed