2014 PLP 1230 (MLD)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.713, dated 21-12-2012, under sections 420, 468, 471 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Noshehra Virkan, District Gujranwala.

2. Precisely the story of F.I.R. as alleged by Muhammad Shafiq (complainant) is that his sister Mst.Sumaira married Muhammad Rashid according to Islamic rituals/rights in column No.19 of nikahnama a condition was incorporated that the bridegroom would pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the bride in case he divorced her; the bridegroom, Muhammad Rashid and his father Muhammad Bashir tampered with the nikahnama erasing the said condition; Muhammad Rashid divorced Mst.Sumaira on 18-6-2012 and it was then, he and his sister Mst.Sumaira learnt about the clever skirmish of the accused.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that Mst.Sumaira filed a suit for maintenance and return of dowry articles etc., before a learned Family Judge at Gujranwala, on the strength of above said nikahnama which did not contain any such condition, in its column No.19, as alleged in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the suit filed by Mst.Sumaira was decreed in her favour vide judgment dated 21-5-2013. Interestingly, Mst.Sumaira, the plaintiff did not raise any plea in her suit as to aforesaid interpolation in nikahnama and believed it a genuine document, having not been doctored by anyone, till the complainant got registered above-said F.I.R. on 21-12-2012. The petitioner who is the nikah registrar, is aged about eighty two (82). He has categorically stated before this court that the nikahnama in issue was not tampered with by him or any of his co-accused in any manner. He has offered to take oath on Holy Quran, in token of correctness of his version. A criminal matter can certainly not be decided on a special oath of the accused yet, his voluntariness in above terms, opens the matter to a serious question, whether or not the document in question had ever been tampered with by the accused-side. There exists no evidence at this stage which may lead to believe that the nikahnama had been tampered with, as alleged by the complainant. It also remains a fact that the sister of the complainant had been divorced by her husband, Muhammad Rashid accused on 18-6-2012 which may be a reason, for the complainant, to involve him and his co-accused, including the petitioner, in the case. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab rather learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the pre-arrest bail application of the bridegroom Muhammad Rashid and that of his father had been granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide order dated 20-6-2013. In such a situation, no other option rests with this court but to allow this petition as prayed for. Therefore, I accept this application and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 2-7-2013, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. MWA/A-104/L Bail confirmed.