2017 PLP 1405 (MLD)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.260/16, dated 03.05.2016 registered at Police Station Kotmomin, District Sargodha, in respect of offence under section 365-B, P.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage, therefore, without going into deeper appreciation of evidence, it is noticed that there is a delay of three months in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. Admittedly the "nikahnama" produced by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation showing his marriage with the alleged abductee Mst. Sana Bibi has been duly verified as correct and apart from "nikahnama", attested copies of private complaint filed by the alleged abductee against her father (complainant) and brothers for the offences under sections 452, 506, 148, 149, P.P.C. and her cursory statement recorded by the learned Area Magistrate concerned has also been placed on the file, wherein she has categorically stated that she contracted marriage with the petitioner with her free-will and consent and against the wishes of her parents. As far as the contention of learned Deputy Prosecutor General that the alleged abductee in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. has supported the story of FIR is concerned, it is quite disgusting trend in our society that firstly the girl elopes with her paramour, solemnize marriage with him and later on when she joins her parents, she takes somersault and implicates her husband and in-laws on the asking of her parents. Taking into consideration the version of the prosecution and that of the petitioner, prima facie the case is of two versions and the question as to which version is correct shall be determined by the learned trial court at an appropriate stage. The above facts create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story, whereas it is settled law that the benefit of doubt can be extended in favour of the accused even at bail stage. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He has already joined the investigation, which is complete to his extent, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars only to come out of jail on post arrest bail after a few days.

3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motive cannot be ruled out of consideration, hence this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. WA/S-89/L Petition allowed.