MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ vs The STATE and another

ORDER

' CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.-- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,839 dated 28-6- 2011, registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. At Police Station Gulgasht, District Multan.

2. Briefly stated the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Against the petitioner are that he abducted Mst. Sumaira Bibi minor daughter of the complainant on 2-5-2011. The said abductee returned on 6-5-2011 of her own. She was frightened at that time. No case was got registered till 28-6-2011 on the pretext that the accused persons have been making requests to the complainant not to proceed against them.

3. The learned counsel contends that this F.I.R. Was lodged with a delay of about two months and no plausible explanation has been given for it. Even the alleged victim, refused to get herself medically examined in spite of levelling allegations of zina against the petitioner and others. The learned counsel contends that actually the abductee Sumaira Bibi was sui juris and had contracted marriage with the petitioner of her own free consent and thereafter on the asking of her parents she filed a suit for jactitation of marriage/ dissolution of marriage. The challan has already been submitted before the trial Court and the petitioner is facing the trial. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been involved in this case by the complainant falsely. He never abducted the daughter of the complainant. She rather contracted marriage with him of her own free consent. In support of his arguments the learned counsel referred to 2011 M LD 1048 (Peshawar)

(Abdul Ghafoor v. The State and another), 2011 YLR 253 (Lahore) (Muhammad Hanif v. The State and another) and PLD 1986 Federal Shariat Court 262 (Khan Muhammad v. The State).

4. The learned D.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed the petition and argued that the alleged abductee had made a statement against the petitioner and others regarding abduction and committing of zina with her but the learned D.P.-G. Admitted that no medical examination report is on the record in respect of the abductee. The case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., so he is not entitled to bail.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and have perused the record.

6. Admittedly the petitioner has placed on record a 'nikahnama' as well as copy of affidavit wherein the alleged abductee claimed to be sui juris being 19 years old and affirmed to have contracted marriage with the petitioner of her own free consent on 2-5-2011 and she further stated in the affidavit that no one has committed zina with her and she was not abducted by anyone. This affidavit was written on 5-5-2011. The record also contains a love letter written by the said Sumaira Bibi to the petitioner in which she invited him for marriage. In spite of the allegations of zina the alleged victim was not willing to get herself medically examined which makes it a case of further inquiry. She has been taking different instances at different times. The F.I.R. Was lodged with a delay of one month 26 days. This inordinate delay has not been satisfactorily explained in the F.I.R. The offence levelled against the petitioner was not compoundable so it is not believable that the complainant kept mum for such a long time merely on the request of the accused persons.

Although the challan is stated to have been submitted but being at initial stage it is not likely to be concluded in the near future. It is a case of further inquiry. So keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner who is behind the bars for the last more than five months is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.