Mrs. SARDARAN BIBI Versus State

ORDER

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Mrs. Sardaran Bibi, Akbar and Jafar petitioners have sought bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No. 232 of 2013, dated 5-6-2013 registered at Police Station Sadar, Chiniot in respect of an offence under section 365-B, P.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent and they have been involved in this case by the complainant with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. There is a delay of one month and twenty-eight days in registration of the F.I.R. which has not been explained by the complainant which shows that the F.I.R. has been got recorded after due deliberations and consultations. As a matter of fact Mst. Abida Bibi, the alleged abductee had contracted marriage with Imran alias Maani with her free will and volition and without the consent of her parents and for that reason a matrimonial issue has been converted into the instant criminal case. During the investigation of this case the alleged abductee has got recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically stated that nobody has abducted her and that she has contracted marriage with Imran alias Maani petitioner of her own consent. Mst. Sardaran Bibi along with her co-accused has also filed Writ Petition No.14965 of 2013 for quashing of F.I.R. which is also sub judice before this Court: The petitioners are previous non-convict, they are respectable persons, they have already joined the investigation, nothing is to be recovered in this case, thus, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars at this stage.

3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record contends that there is absolutely no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioners in this case. The alleged abductee is only twelve years of age and she is not puberty enough to contract marriage of her own. The alleged Nikah of the abductee with Imran alias Mani accused has been maneouvered, just to save the skin of the petitioners. In such like cases delay in registration of F.I.R. is not fatal to prosecution case as people used to settle such type of matter through respectables before approaching the police to save their honour. The petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of abduction is attributed to them therein. The petitioners are the main accused who have taken abductee with them. This is bail before arrest which is an extraordinary relief meant for innocent persons but in this case the petitioners are fully involved. Recovery is yet to be effected from them.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is permissible at this stage. Without going deeper into the merits of the case it has been noticed that there is a delay of one month and twenty-eight days delay in registration of the F.I.R. which has not been explained by the complainant. During the investigation of this case the alleged abductee has got recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein she has refuted the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. and categorically stated that she had contracted marriage with Imran alias Maani petitioner and nobody had abducted her. The alleged abductee had also sworn an affidavit wherein she has stated that nobody had abducted her and she had contracted marriage with Imran alias Maani petitioner of her own free will and volition. Even in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Lahore the alleged abductee has refuted her abduction and affirmed factum of her Nikah with Imran alias Maani. Thus in the backdrop of such a situation it seems that the complainant has spread net wide just to entangle the whole family of Imran alias Maani petitioner in this case. The petitioners are previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, they have already joined the investigation, thus, sending them behind the bars at this stage would not serve any beneficial purpose.

5. For what has been discussed above false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out of consideration. This petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners vide order dated 28-6-2013 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

HBT/S-89/L Bail confirmed.