2010 P Cr (PLP)

ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.

Petitioner, namely, Rab Nawaz, through this petition seeks the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent, namely, Adam Khan, vide order dated 19-6-2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, D.I.Khan.

2. Brief facts are that an inquiry was conducted under sec?tion 156(3), Cr.P.C. while in pursuance to the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, D.I.Khan recorded in application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., the instant F.I.R. was lodged. According to the report, the complainant was asleep at his house when at about 1-00 hours in the night it was disclosed to him that his daughter, namely, Mst. Rubina Bibi alias Sumiya Bibi aged about 17/18 years already in the Nikah of one Samiullah, was missing.- On inquiry it revealed to him that the present accused/respondent has enticed away.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the lady is already married with one Samiullah and the accused/respondent has performed Nikah over Nikah, which is not allowed by Sharia. He further argued that the Nikah Khawan of the second Nikah, has denied in the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. about the performance of second Nikah of lady with the present accused/respondent.

5. On the other hand, the stand of learned counsel for accused/respondent is that there is nothing on file in favour of first alleged Nikah of the lady with Samiullah. According to him, the accused/respondent has legally married with the lady and to that effect a Nikahnama is on file. He further argued that the lady recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. and also submitted an affidavit to the effect that she has married with accused/respondent on her own free will.

6. I have gone through the record and considered the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The main allegation in the F.I.R. is that of enticing away of Mst. Rubina Bibi alias Sumiya Bibi, has performed Nikah with accused/ respondent while the said lady was in the Nikah of one Samiullah. In this case the lady Mst. Rubina alias Sumiya Bibi appeared before Judicial Magistrate and recorded her statement on 9-3-2009, wherein she has stated that she was unmarried and now has entered into the Nikah on her own sweet will with accused/respondent and is living happily with him. This statement is further supported by an affidavit available on file. There is a statement of Manzur Ahmad, who is the Nikahkhawan of second Nikah. This statement is recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. in which he has denied performance of Nikah between the accused/ respondent and Mst. Rubina Bibi alias Sumiya Bibi. But it is strange that on 4-7-2009 he submitted an affidavit, wherein he mentioned that the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. given by him, was under the pressure of police and in fact he has performed the Nikah of accused/respondent with Mst. Rubina Bibi alias Sumiya Bibi. It is also on record that the lady/alleged abductee has filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against Samiullah in the Court of Judge Family Court at District Tank. All the above affairs have made the case of the accused/respondent as arguable for the purpose of bail. The principle for grant of bail and its cancellation are altogether different. For cancellation of bail, the complainant is required to establish strong reasons. It is also to be established that either bail is misused or evidence is tampered. There is nothing on record to make the case of petitioner fit for cancellation of bail. Hence, the bail cancellation petition is rejected and cancellation refused. H.B.T./69/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.