2017 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The allegation against the petitioner, Tariq as per FIR No.219/15, dated 27.11.2015, under sections 365-B, 376(2), P.P.C., police station Massan (Jhang) is that he joined by his co-accused forcibly abducted Mst. Parveen Bibi, a maternal niece of Ghulam Farid (complainant) at shamwela on 05.11.2015; they threatened Ghulam Jillani and Muhammad Anwar of murder, if they attempted to come in between; the complainant together with his co-witnesses approached families of the accused, who promised to return the abductee but they declined later on.

2. The record reveals that Mst.Parveen Bibi (abductee) rendered statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2015 and under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 12.12.2015 whereby she endorsed the story of FIR.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that some crucial observations had been recorded by this court while dismissing pre-arrest bail application (Crl. Misc. No. 3280-B-2015) of Tariq (petitioner) and his two co-accused, which may not be irrelevant herein either, regardless the fact, that the instant one is a post arrest bail application on his behalf. Those observations are reproduced hereunder: "......that statement of the alleged abductee, recorded by the learned magistrate on 08.11.2015 before dispatching her to Dar-ul-Aman has been disowned by her with the contention that she had been abducted and raped by both the accused-petitioners. She, in her statements under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. has fully corroborated the F1R-case and maintained that she had been abducted and violated by the accused. The evidentiary value of her statement as recorded by the learned magistrate on 08.11.2015, may be adjudged in better terms by the learned trial court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. She is a married lady, who must have thought thousands of time before involving the petitioners in this case as her abductors and violators."

4. It goes without saying that consideration for post arrest bail are altogether different from those, needed for bail before arrest, but in a situation, where circumstances almost remained unchanged, even after dismissal of application for bail before arrest and resultant arrest of the accused, the observations previously recorded on merits might not lose its efficacy and relevance. The petitioner's application for bail before arrest was dismissed on 14.04.2016 and challan against him was prepared by the police on 15.04.2016 for submitting it to the learned trial court. The police virtually conducted no investigation at all, after they arrested the petitioner on rejection of his pre-arrest bail application. The alleged abductee, Mst. Parveen Bibi is a married lady and mother of three kids, who categorically contended before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2015 and before the learned area magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 12.12.2015 that she had been gang-raped by the petitioner and his co-accused, which offence entailed capital punishment. She reiterated this stance when she appeared before the women medical officer for her medical examination on 28.11.2015. The eye-witnesses still support the prosecution case. Her dispatch to Dar-ul-Aman and sojourn thereat is a circumstance which may better be taken care of by the learned trial court during the course of the trial. By no means, it could be considered a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioner within the mischief of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept this application which is accordingly dismissed. WA/T-19/L Bail refused.