IRFAN SAEED vs THE STATE

ORDER

' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---The petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,361 of 2006, dated 15-7- 2006, registered under sections 10/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station, Saddar Okara.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the daughter of the complainant was abducted by the petitioner along with others for purposes of committing Zina.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been involved in the case at the instance of the complainant on account of money dispute and that the husband, mother-in- law and father-in-law of the alleged abductee had sworn in affidavits to the effect that the said abductee was present in their house on the, day of occurrence. Lastly contended that the case against the petitioner was false, hence he was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role of abduction for purposes of Zina with the daughter of the complainant had been assigned to him; that the abductee was recovered on 16th of June, 2006, who in her statement under ' section 161, Cr.P.C. Fully supported the prosecution case; that the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Were hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, and that the petitioner misused the concession of bail as he did not appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara after grant of ad interim pre arrest bail, hence he is not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner is nominated in the. F.I.R. And serious allegations of abduction for purposes of committing Zina have been levelled against' him. The abductee in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has fully supported the prosecution case. The petitioner has failed to dilate upon any mala fide of the complainant on account of Which he could have been falsely involved in the case.

Further, when the petitioner's bail petition was fixed, for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he absented himself which is evident from the note given by the learned Court at the end of the order. Thus, the petitioner misused the concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail.

' After dismissal of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner remained fugitive from the law for almost 24 days. The affidavits referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no consequence as the evidence of the witnesses recorded by the police could not be kept out of consideration on the basis of the affidavits. At present, there is ample evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the offences alleged against him which; even otherwise, fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. Resultantly this petition being without force is dismissed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16-8-2006 is recalled.