GHULAM FAREED vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition, petitioner, Ghulam Fareed son of Esa seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,333 of 2009 dated 22-5-2009 registered with Police Station Saddar, DG Khan, under sections 337-L(0/376/365-B P.P.C. On the complaint of Master Mushtaq Ahmed son of Abdul Karim, complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was sleeping in his house, on hearing alarm at about 11/12 at night, he woke up and saw that Rafique Ahmad armed with Kalashinkov, Allah Ditta armed with pistol, Bashir Ahmad armed with pistol were present in his Haveli and forcibly taking away her daughter Sajida Mai aged about 14/15 years. When he tried to interfere, they extended threats to be done to death and on threat of firearms; they took away her on motorcycle.

Muhammad Umar and Manzoor Hussain also witnessed the occurrence, Later on abducted girl reached home and made a statement under section 161 Cr.PC narrating the whole story of her kidnapping as well as confinement in a property and thereafter, commission of Zina-bil-Jabar with her by present accused/petitioner and by other co-accused. Her statement under section 164, Cr.PC was also recorded wherein she also nominated as culprit of commission of zina, Ghulam Farid, present petitioner. Hence, this F.I.R.

3. Petitioner applied for post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, DG Khan, who vide order dated 25-8-2009 dismissed the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. That there is 18 hours unexplained delay in lodging of F.I.R.; that name of the petitioner for the first time came on the surface on 4-6-2009; that there is no eye-witness of commission of Zina in this case to depose against the petitioner, so, the case of the petitioner becomes as one of further inquiry; that the W.M.O. Also found no marks of violence on any part of the victim including private parts which belies the allegation of Zina-bil-Jabar with her, so, medical evidence is not supportive of the prosecution case; that petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation; that petitioner has no crime history and is respectable citizen of the country; that the contents of the F.I.R. Are contrary to the medical report; learned counsel for the petitioner makes reliance on 2008 YLR 690, 1989 MLD 1671, 2009 YLR 1074, 2008 YLR 1062, 1988 P.Cr.LJ 53, 2008 YLR 2357, 1989 M LD 4464 and 2003 PCr.LJ 385, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

5. Learned ADPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground that victim, Sajida Bibi made statement under section 161, Cr.PC narrating whole story of her kidnapping as well as confinement in a property and thereafter commission of Zina amongst others by present petitioner; that further she implicate the present petitioner in her statement under section 164, Cr.PC; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.PC; that Challan has been submitted in the trial Court, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. The delay in such cases of abduction is to resolve the case through Panchiat. The petitioner's name came to the surface when statement of abductee Mst. Sajida Bibi was recorded wherein she fully implicated present petition in her abduction. The abductee is a minor girl aged 14/15 years. The offence does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC. Mst. Sajida Bibi in her statement recorded before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.PC also deposed that she was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabar by the present petitioner and by other co-accused collectively. The weapon of offence was also recovered which was used during the occurrence. Vide Zimni No,2 dated 4-6- 2009 section 376 P.P.C. Was also added. P.Ws. Manzoor Hussain and Muhammad Umar in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.PC have implicate the petitioner in the commission of forcible abduction of Mst. Sajida Bibi. The citation referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner for grant of bail, much material on the file to connect the petitioner along with other co-accused in the commission of offence under sections 365-B, 376 P.P.C. And the same falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. PC, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, therefore, this petition is dismissed. However, observations in this bail refusing order are of tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side A during trial of the case.