RASHID vs THE STATE and others

' MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.---Petitioner . Rashid, who is charged in a case registered against him under sections 376,365-B/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,64 dated 2-4-2010 in Police Station Nara, seeks release on bail as his bail petitions were turned down by the courts below.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 23-3-2010 Muhammad Mushtaq, brother of abductee Mst. Nazma, through an application submitted to S.H.O. Lodged report about-missing of his sister from the house and also of four tolas golden ornaments. And a mobile set. Later on 2-4-2010 the abductee was recovered and her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded. On the basis of her statement, petitioner was charged besides Munir; Shakoor and cousin of petitioner for abduction of Mst. Nazima on gun point, keeping her for six months in different places and for commission of Zina-bil-Jabr.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that the petitioner is a suzuki driver and only his vehicle was booked for lifting of abductee .By accused Munir and that the abductee was not recovered from the possession of petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that the case of petitioner falls within-the scope of further inquiry and is therefore, ,entitled to the concession of bail.

4. As against that, the learned State Counsel as well as counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the release of petitioner on bail- on the grounds that the accused/petitioner has not only been charged by the abductee in her statement- for commission of a heinous immoral offence but is reasonably connected with the same from all angles.

5. Admittedly, petitioner has been directly charged by the abductee for commission of heinous immoral offence. The accused party had allegedly taken the abductee from one place to another on gun point and kept her for about six months in illegal confinement and subjected her to illegal sexual intercourse. Keeping in view the bare statement of abductee in mind there is no possibility of false implication of petitioner with commission of crime of such heinous nature. Petitioner and his co-accused have allegedly committed rape on the person of complainant, who is hardly 17/18 years of age time and again for about six months consecutively and medical evidence fully supports the prosecution version. The offence is that of moral turpitude and heinous in nature.

Prima facie petitioner is reasonably connected with the commission of crime, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. Consequently, the instant bail petition is dismissed.