2001 PLP 282 (MLD)

Sher Muhammad for the State. N.A. Butt for the Complainant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and others vide F.I.R. No‑618, dated 18‑6‑1999 for an offence under section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Chunian District Kasur.

2. The F.I.R. was lodged by Muhammad Ramzan, complainant who stated therein that he was married to Mst. Samreen about 9/10 years ago; that out of their wedlock four children were born that he was employed in the Army and during his absence his wife developed illicit relations with a number of persons including the present petitioner; that on 18‑6‑1999 the accused persons took away his wife with cash amounting to Rs.1,35,000, a coloured T.V., clothes etc. 2‑A. The petitioner's learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation the allegation of abduction of Mst. Samreen was not established; that the police also came to the conclusion that no property was stolen from the complainant's house and prepared a report for discharge of the accused persons; that the A.S.P. Kasur came to the conclusion that the offence under section 16 of the Ordinance be deleted and the accused be challaned under section 10 of the Ordinance; that Muhammad Ramzan, complainant had divorced his wife Mst. Samreen three times through written Talaqnama on 13‑8‑1998 and that the petitioner had contracted marriage with Mst. Samreen and they were lawfully living as husband and wife.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State and the complainant submit that the divorce was withdrawn on 13‑10‑1998 before the expiry of 90 days; that the complainant's marriage with Mst. Samreen was subsisting when the accused person contracted marriage with her on 27‑7‑1999; that Mst. Samreen was also arrested as an accused in the case, that the petitioner's alleged marriage with Mst. Samreen is void and he was rightly ordered to be challaned under section 10 of the Ordinance; that the abductee was recovered on 14‑9‑1999 and her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded by a Magistrate on 15‑9‑1999 in which she did not mention about her alleged Nikah with the petitioner and supported the prosecution story and that the challan has already been submitted in the Court.

4. In reply the petitioner's learned counsel pointed out that she disowned her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted an affidavit on 30‑9‑1999 before the Investigating Officer.

5. After thorough investigation of the case, the A.S.P. has ordered that the present petitioner be challaned for an offence under section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979.1 refrain from making any observation qua the validity of the petitioner's marriage/Nikah with Mst. Samreen and leave it to be decided by the trial Court in the light of the evidence of the parties brought on the record. Suffice it to observe at this stage that in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Mst. Samreen did not say a single' word about her alleged Nikah with the petitioner. She narrated the background in which she was deceitfully taken away from her house. She further stated that the present petitioner as well as Arif co‑accused had subjected her to illicit intercourse. The affidavit of the abductee if any submitted before the Investigating Officer has yet to be verified and cannot be preferred over her statement recorded by the Magistrate under section 164, of the Cr.P.C.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑51/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.