2006 PLP 2955 (YLR)

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.1931-B of 2005 (Mst. Hanifa Bibi v. The State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No.1932-B of 2005 (Mst. Naseem alias Bhago v. The State) as both the bail petitions pertain to the same F.I.R.

2. The petitioners Mst. Hanifa Bibi and Mst. Naseem alias Bhago, seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.175, dated 16-3-2005, offence under sections 11 and 10 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 registered at Police Station, City Miai Chanun, District Khanewal.

3. Allegation against the petitioners as per prosecution version, is that the petitioners had abducted Mst. Munazaa Kiran daughter of the complainant Hidaya son of Hakim Masih. Mst Manuzza Kiran the abductee was returned with the intervention of Panchayat. The abductee told that the petitioners forcibly solemnized her Nikah with Ghulam Nabi but she flatly refused, whereupon, Ghulam Nab committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her, hence the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant. The petitioners are women their case is hit by proviso (2) of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. Further contend there is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. which clearly manifest that the complainant has sufficient time to cook up a false story to involve the petitioners in the abovementioned case jus to humiliate their honour within the society The petitioners are behind the bars and are no more required for the purpose of further investigation. Also contends that co-accuses of the petitioners has been granted bail therefore, petitioners are also entitled for the same premium.

5. Conversely, learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioners were the instrumented in abducting Mst. Munazza Kiran, daughter of the complainant, hence, they are no entitled for the concession of bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record Admittedly, Mst. Munazza Kiran-alleged abductee was returned by the petitioners on 11/12-3-2005 at about 12-00 p.m. (night) and the F.I.R. was recorded on 16-3-2005 after the delay of 4/5 days. This delay has not been explained in the F.I.R. Apparently, it seems that the petitioners have been falsely involved in the case just to pressurize them. Had the petitioners been involved in the case, they would not have returned the daughter of the complainant as stated in the F.I.R. The gesture on the part of the petitioners is bona fide. It is yet to be determined whether the A petitioners were involved for the abduction of Mst. Munazza Kiran-daughter of the complainant or not. The case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their-guilt. The case of the petitioners come under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and are entitled to bail. The petitioners cannot be kept in Jail for an indefinite period as there is no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in near future. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge. N.H.Q./H-87/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.