1976 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. M. Abdul Wahid for Petitioner. Rehmat Khan for the State. Ziaullah for the Complainant. A case under section 363/366, P. P. C. has been registered against the petitioner on the allegation that he alongwith Zia‑ud‑Din, Mst. Nasim begum and Mst. Riaz Begum enticed away Mst. Perveen Akhtar and the latter took away with her various articles of clothes and ornaments as well as Rs. 3800. F. I. R. was lodged on 9‑30 p.m. on 26‑6‑

75. On 30‑6‑75 the petitioner alongwith Mst. Perveen Akhtar was noticed by the Police at the Bus Stand Lalamusa whereupon the petitioner was arrested. Mst. Perveen Akhtar was produced before a learned Magistrate for recording her statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. In this statement, Mst. Perveen Akhtar said that the petitioner hart been pursuading her to marry him and similarly Mst. Riaz Begum and Nasim Begum were pursuading her. She did not tell anything to her mother. On 25‑6‑1975, while she, her mother, other members of the family and her brother. Shakoor were in the house at about 10 p.m. Mst. Riaz Begum and Mst. Nasim Begum came to their house and asked her mother that her father Haji Roshan Din who lived in Lalazar Colony was not well and was calling for her whereupon her mother allowed her to go with Mst. Riaz ands Mst. Nasim who came alongwith her in the street where a car was parked. The aforesaid two women put her in the car but themselves did not get in. In the car on the back seat was sitting Sarfraz, the petitioner. The car was driven away. They reached Lahore in the night from where they went to Karachi and lived in a Hotel. The amount of Rs. 3800 with her was taken away by Zia‑ud‑Din. who did not return until 28‑6‑1975. When Sarfaraz, tile petitioner, exhausted his funds, he bad brought her back to Lahore from where they were coming by bus to Lalamusa when the Police arrested Sarfraz the petitioner. It is also stated that during all this period, the petitioner had been threatening her on account of which she remained quiet. After the arrest, the petitioner applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum, who ride order skated. 24‑7-75. observed that the "case against the petitioner it, under sections 363/366, P. P. C: about the abduction of one Mst. Perveen. According to the School leaving certificate she was born on 16-1-1959. According to the record of Municipal Committee she was born on 31‑3‑61". The application was admitted for regular hearing. When the case came up for final hearing, there were found interpolations in the Municipal record and the learned Sessions Judge refused to confirm the bail ride order dated 20‑8‑

75. The petitioner has filed this application for bail.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged abductee Mst. Perveen Akhtar is major and had gone of her free will. Learned counsel submits that she was born on 18‑7‑58 according to the Municipal Record and, at the time of entry in the School, a few months were added. Thus, her date of birth according to the School Certificate is 16‑1‑

59. Therefore, at relevant time on 25‑6‑75, she would be more than the prescribed age and in that event, the petitioner is entitled to bail.

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application on the ground that the interpolations in the record of Municipal Committee had been made at the instance of the petitioner and without the interpolations the age of Mst. Perveen Akhtar is less than 16 years and, thus the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has supported the learned counsel for the State and has strenuously argued that no reliance can be placed on the interpolated Municipal record. According to the learned counsel the alleged abductee was born on 31‑3‑61 and was therefore, minor at the time of abduction. The School Leaving Certificate it is submitted, cannot be relied upon. The offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with a sentence of ten years, therefore, the petitioner is not entitl ed to bail.

5. The central question in the case would be about the age of Mst. Perveen Akhtar at the time of alleged abduction. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted a certified copy of an application made to the learned Sessions Judge for examination of the alleged abductee by a Radiologist for ascertainment of her age but no action seems to have been taken thereon. According to the statement of Mst. Perveen Akhtar record ed by the learned Magistrate under section 164, Cr. P. C. Mot. Parveen Akhtar had refused to be medically examined. A School Leaving Certificate shows her date of birth to be 16‑1‑59 and, thus, at the time of the alleged occurrence, she would be more than 16 years. The controversy regarding entries in the Municipal record, at present, cannot be resolved without further inquiry as to who had made the interpolations. Without expressing any opinion about the exact date of birth of the alleged abductee, it appears that in the absence of any authentic date about the date of birth, the case would fall under subsection (2) of section

497. Cr. P. C. The petitioner was arrested on 30‑6‑

75. No evidence has yet been led by the prosecution be, fore the trial Court. In all these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jhelum.