MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus State

ORDER

SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.--- The petitioner/Muhammad Hanif seeks pre-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.298 of 2010, dated 1-5-2010, registered in Police Station Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif, under section 365-B, P, P. C.

2. Succinctly the allegation against the present petitioner levelled by the complainant Mst. Zubaida in the FIR., is that on 4-3-2010, at about 10-30 a.m., the said petitioner along with the co-accused abducted her for the purpose of committing illicit intercourse. The accused are .also alleged to have stolen Rs.20,000 and gold ornaments weighing 5 totals. The complainant further alleged that the present petitioner had been committing rape with her and got her thumb impression on blank papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of about two months in the registration of the case as the occurrence took place on 4-3-2010 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 1-5-2010. He further submitted that the complainant, who is not only a maternal cousin of the petitioner but also, being major and sui-juris, contracted valid marriage with the petitioner according to Sharia Muhammadi, out of her free-will, vide "Nikah Nama" dated 4-3-2010. He maintained that Mst. Zubaida Bibi/ complainant along with the petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. in the Sessions Court, Lahore, wherein she appeared along with the petitioner and put her thumb impression on the order sheet dated 10-3-2010. He pointed out that the petitioner has also obtained an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the present complainant on 11-6-2010. He argued that the allegation of the commission of the alleged offence against the present petitioner is totally false and the petitioner has been implicated by the complainant with mala fide intentions under the undue pressure of her parents.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned DPG opposed the instant petition on the ground that the victim has herself lodged the instant F.I.R. and she has also fully supported her allegation in the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. They further submitted that the complainant/Mst. Zubaida Bibi has filed a suit for jactitation of marriage. Lastly, they argued that the punishment of the offences, alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

5. Argument heard. Record perused.

6. Mst. Zubaida Bibi complainant was allegedly abducted on 4-3-2010, whereas the petitioner has placed on record a copy A of "Nikah Nama, which shows that the Nikah of said Mst. Zubaida Bibi was solemnized with the petitioner on 4-3-2010. It is strange that neither the parents nor any relative of Mst. Zubaida Bibi lodged an F.I.R. immediately after the occurrence on 4-3-2010 and the F.I.R. was lodged by Mst. Zubaida Bibi herself on 1-5-2010, after her alleged escape from the custody of the petitioner. Mst. Zubaida Bibi/ complainant along with Muhammad Hanif present petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. against S.H.O., Police Station Purani Anarkali, Lahore, wherein not only her presence has been marked but also her thumb impression is affixed on the order sheet dated 10-3-2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore.

7. Furthermore, Secretary, Union Council, Guldusht Colony (6), District Lahore, has issued a certificate on 28-5-2010 regarding the marriage of Mst. Zubaida Bibi with Muhammad Hanif on 4-3-2010. Additionally, not only the present petitioner has obtained an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights against Mst. Zubaida Bibi/complainant but also the said Mst. Zubaida Bibi has instituted a suit for jactitation of marriage against the present petitioner. The petitioner and the alleged victim are closely related to each other. In these circumstances, particularly, the litigation regarding genuineness of "Nikha Nama" dated 4-3-2010 the commission of the alleged offences by the present petitioner is doubtful. Needless to mention here that the benefit of doubt is to be given to an accused even at bail stage. Hence, the instant pre-arrest bail petition, filed by Muhammad Hanif, is accepted and interim bail already granted to him is confirmed, subject to submission of fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00 000, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

N.H.Q./M-463/L Pre-arrest bail granted.