Mst. FAUZIA and another vs THE STATE and another
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Yazman, District Bahawalpur. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail where the alleged abductee appeared in court, stated she was sui juris, denied being abducted, and maintained she contracted marriage of her own free will with one of the petitioners. The Lahore High Court held that since the alleged abductee categorically stated before the court that she was sui juris and had married of her own free will without any abduction, the case against the petitioners called for further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that the statement of an alleged abductee claiming majority and denying abduction constitutes grounds for further inquiry, warranting the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the alleged abductee denies abduction and states she contracted marriage of her own free will?
- Does a statement by an alleged abductee claiming to be sui juris bring the case within the scope of further inquiry?
- Are petitioners nominated in an FIR entitled to bail if the primary charge is disputed by the alleged victim before the court?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 468 dated 2-7- 2007 registered under section 365, P.P.C. At Police Station Yazman District Bahawalpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent. 'Mst. Fauzia alleged abductee was never abducted by anybody. She being sui juris contracted marriage with Muhammad Nisar petitioner No, 2 Nikahnama is attached with the petition. That the F.I.R. Was lodged in order to gain ulterior motive and based upon concocted false story, therefore the matter falls within the ambit of further inquiry and probe.
3. Conversely learned D.P.-G. Halfheartedly opposed the grant of bail, but the learned counsel for the complainant has seriously opposed the grant of bail. He contends that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role and Mst. Fauzia has not attained the age of puberty.
Therefore they are not entitled to any relief.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.
5. Mst. Fauzia present in Court states that she being sui juris with her free will and volition contracted marriage with Muhammad Nisar. Nikahnama is attached with the petition. She further states that she was never abducted by anyone. Alleged abductee claimed to be major, adult and sui juris for all intents and purposes. She had emphatically and categorically maintained before this Court that she had not been abducted or enticed away by anybody and she had married with petitioner No, 2 of her own free will and volition which fact was evidenced by registered Nikahnama.
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and pre-arrest bail of the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs, 30,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.