MUHAMMAD ABID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE

ORDER

' KHURSIHD ANWAR BHINDER, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,721/2008 dated 12-6-2008 registered under sections 496, 380, P.P.C. At Police Station Factory Area Lahore.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. Are that he along with his accomplices had abducted daughter of the complainant and had subsequently committing Zina- bil-Jabr with her and had also stolen house hold articles and some gold ornaments from the house of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of 12 days in lodging of the F.I.R, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. He has also referred to the statement of Habib P.W. Who had also sworn affidavit to the effect that he had not seen the occurrence, rather his name has been incorporated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Falsely.

' He has also referred to the statement of the abductee which she made before the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. That nobody had abducted her rather she had contracted marriage with the petitioner with her free will and consent. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner.

Offences under which the present petitioner is liable to be tried do not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He lastly, submits that the petitioner has given contradictory statements one to the police in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Wherein she fully implicates the petitioner with the commission of the said offence and on the other hand she also stated before the Magistrate in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. That nobody had abducted her. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the case reported as Zeeshan Ali Butt v. State (2009 M LD 171) and unreported judgment titled Shakeel Ahmed, v. State (Crl. Misc. No,10245/B/2008).

4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of abduction and commission of theft in the house of the complainant as well. He has particularly referred to the statement of the abductee which she made before the Investigating Officer under section 161, Cr.P.C. That the petitioner is the one who has abducted her and had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her and her earlier statement which she made before the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was procured under coercion and duress, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such statement. He lastly submits that the petitioner is a desperate hardened criminal and number of criminal cases have already been registered against him prior to this occurrence.

5. Learned D.P.G. Also opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role and he has committed very heinous offence of abduction and challan of the case has already been submitted in the trial Court and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned D.P.G. And have also perused the record: The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And serious allegations have been levelled against him regarding abduction of the daughter of the complainant, however it is to be seen from the record and evidence available as to whether offences under which the petitioner is liable to be tried are attracted in this case or not. The abductee had stated before the learned Magistrate in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. That nobody had abducted her rather she had contracted marriage with the petitioner with her free will and consent but on the other hand she had also stated in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.

Before the Investigating Officer that her earlier statement was procured under duress and presure, and it is the petitioner who had abducted her and subsequently had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her as well. In this view of the matter, when there are two contradictory statements available on A record, I am afraid no reliance can be placed on the statement of the abductee and it is not really known as to which statement is to be believed. Moreover, one of the P. Ws. Has also sworn an affidavit in which he had very clearly stated that he had not seen the occurrence and his name was incorporated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Falsely. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the offences under, the petitioner is liable to be tried do not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

' Petition stands disposed of.