2003 PLP 1673 (MLD)

Jameel Chohan for the State. Date of hearing: 14th May, 2003. Petitions seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.52 of 2002 dated 8-2-2002, under section 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 380 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Gaggoo District Vehari.

2. Brief relevant facts of the case as per F.I.R. are that complainant's sister Mst. Waziran Bibi was got married with Falak Sher 3 years ago, and for a period, of about 5 months she is living in complainant's house due to strained relations with her husband. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Anwar petitioner who was on visiting terms in complainant's house, developed liaison with Mst. Waziran Bibi. On becoming aware, the complainant stopped him. On 20-1-2002, on account of some personal pre-occupation the complainant had to go to Burewala. On his return, he found his sister Mst. Waziran Bibi was not at home, he pondered and started his efforts to trace her. During the course of this exercise, two persons namely Bashir Ahmad and Allah Yar met him on the way and informed that they saw Mst. Waziran while 5oarding on a white car alongwith Muhammad Anwar petitioner and four co-accused, going towards Arifwala. On complainant's return to home he checked the house and found Rs.35,000 cash, 4 Tolas Gold ornaments and 13 un-stitched, suit missing. He through "Punchayat" approached the accused persons for the return of his sister as well as abovesaid articles, where they promised and, thereafter refused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of 5 months in the registration of the case; that co-accused Muhammad Din, Allah Ditta and Muhammad Tariq have been declared' innocent by the police; that the alleged abductee was not recovered from the petitioner, she appeared before the police on her own; that the story stated by her in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. is somewhat different from the story narrated, by the complainant in the F.I.R.; that the abductee refused to get herself medically examined and that there is no recovery of any articles mentioned in the F.I.R., from the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application by contending that the offence of section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 has also been added, therefore, the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Undoubtedly, there is a delay of 5 months in the registration of the case for which there is no explanation. If complainant's sister was abducted and he came to know on the same day of the abduction and the accused persons, then there was no reason of such along delay in the registration of the case. This delay, prima facie, costs serious doubt about the prosecution story. Neither the abductee was recovered from the petitioner nor any articles mentioned in the F.I.R. were recovered from him. The abductee has also refused to get herself medically examined, so there is no support of medical evidence in the case. Prima facie, the case of the petitioner appears to be one of further inquiry. He is, accordingly, admitted to bail subject to his 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 learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-1973/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.