2011 PLP 1292 (MLD)

Mst. Hurriya Naveed petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.1506 of 2010 dated 28-11-2010 under section 365, P.P.C. at Police Station Madina Town, Faisalabad on the written application of Syed Arif Hussain for alleged abduction of her daughter Mst. Arbab Zahara against the petitioner and others. During investigation offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. was also added to the F.I.R.

2. Precisely the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. are that on 26-11-2010 at about 6-30 a.m., somebody made rap on the outer gate of the house of complainant and responding to the same, his elder daughter Mst. Arbab Zahara opened door whereupon petitioner Hurriya Naveed along with his co-accused Azzed Raza alias Bilal Shah, Sohaib Sindhu, Salman, Sheraz Hussain and two unknown persons overpowered her and by putting her in a automobile XLI unknown registration number, abducted her.

3. During investigation complainant made supplementary statement after 30 days of the registration of the case levelling allegation that her daughter has been abducted for ransom.

4. The petitioner was arrested in this case and thereafter his after arrest bail was refused by the learned trial Court.

5. In support of bail application, it has been argued that there is delay of two days in lodging F.I.R. without its perspicuity; complainant spitefully made a false supplementary statement levelling allegation of ransom for the return of her daughter in order to make the gravity of the offence more and to bring it in the mischief of terrorist activities. Learned counsel has further submitted that story of the prosecution case to the extent of involvement of the petitioner appears to be doubtful because real brother of the petitioner namely Sohaib Sindhu allegedly participated in the occurrence and the same does not appeal to reasons when Sohaib Sindhu brother of the petitioner was not desiring to be married with the alleged abductee. Further argued that on different occasions, alleged abductee has been appearing before courts and made her statement to the effect that she was neither abducted by anybody nor subjected to Zina by anyone. Further submits that petitioner is in accouchement now a day and is ready to deliver a baby in this way, her case is also covered within proviso 1 of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. Learned D.P.-G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. She has played an active role in the commission of crime; the alleged abductee after having been recovered has made statement against the petitioner and others. Further argued that the statements allegedly made by the abductee while in custody/control of the petitioner and others are absolutely false as it has come on record that some fictitious girl was produced, therefore, offence being heinous falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, she is not entitled for grant of bail.

7. Heard. Record perused.

8. The petitioner though is nominated in the F.I.R. yet being fair sex her case comes within the mischief of proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. She is in a family way and to her extent investigation is complete and her body is no more required for further investigation. The facts and circumstances of the case prima facie persuade us to grant her bail, therefore, instant petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of DR (Judl.) of this Court. H.B.T./H-17/L Bail granted.