2006 PLP 394 (MLD)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Mazhar son of Aslam, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.547 of 2005 dated 13-7-2005, registered at Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura, under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979.

2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Irshad alias Babu son of Akbar Ali was that he was a resident of Kabirwala, District Sahiwal and earned his livelihood by selling diapers (Khais) and cotton carpets (Durries); on 12-7-2005 about 8/9 a.m. his wife Mst. Safiya Bibi and one Jatti Bibi were going after selling the said articles and when they reached the metalled road near PSO Petrol Pump, suddenly a white coloured Pick-up pulled besides them; Aslam son of Sahu, Mazhar son of Aslam, Khalil son of Wazir, Mukhtaran wife of Aslam and two unknown persons disembarked from the said vehicle and bundled Mst. Safiya Bibi in the Pick-up at gun point and proceeded towards Sheikhupura; Jatti Bibi raised hue and cry which attracted Muhammad Ali alias Chenab son of Wali Muhammad and Azeem son of Allah Yar who also witnessed the occurrence. The motive according to the complainant was that Khalil co-accused had been appointed as Lamburdar of the Bradri but thereafter the complainant had refused to endorse his appointment and had demanded the documents back. It was due to this grudge that the incident of abduction had taken place. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.

3. After his arrest, the petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail, however, his application was turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide his order dated 11-8-2005. Hence the instant petition.

4. I have heard Syed M. Nisar Safdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Jamil Hassan Pasha, the learned counsel for the complainant, as also Mr. Abdul Majeed Chishti, the learned State counsel and have perused the record brought by Mukhtar Ahmad S.-I. Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura.

5. It has been observed that in the F.I.R. the complainant Irshad alias Babu has not mentioned the nature of relationship between the complainant party and the accused party. The claim made by the petitioner from the very beginning that his sister is the wife of the complainant's brother and the complainant's sister is married to petitioner's brother has not been denied by the prosecution. In this backdrop the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. is motivated and had been got registered in order to settle some family disputes in that, the sister of the petitioner had refused to live with her husband, cannot light by brushed aside. During the course of hearing of this petition one Mst. Razia Bibi alias Nagina wife of Muhammad Azeem appeared in the Court and claimed that she was a real sister of Safiya Bibi the alleged abductee which claim Mst. Safiya Bibi, who was also present in the Court, could not deny. Mst. Razia alias Nagina stated that Mst. Safiya Bibi the alleged abductee had coined a false story and she supported the plea of the petitioner that the F.I.R. had been lodged to settled familial disputes. Even otherwise, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that it was a very strange coincident that when Mst. Jatti Bibi raised hue and cry on the main Gujranwala Road near PSO Petrol Pump, the two witnesses namely Muhammad Ali alias Chenab and Azeem son of Allah Yar residents of Kabirwala who are closely related to the complainant were the only ones who came and witnessed the occurrence. In their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. the said witnesses have not mentioned as to what brought them at the scene of occurrence all the way from Kabirwala. I would not like to further dwell on the merits of the case lest it prejudices either of the parties; suffice it to say, that keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case especially the delay of about 26 hours in lodging the F.I.R., the non-mentioning of close relationship inter se the parties and possibility of matrimonial disputes, the case of the petitioner is rendered one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C.

6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-1402/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.