MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus State

ORDER

1. SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J .---The applicant has impugned the order dated 15-3-2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Karachi in Sessions Case No.189/07 in Crime No.068/07, under section 365-B, P.P.C. of Police Station Super Market, Karachi, whereby the bail application of the applicant was turned down.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as depicted in the F.I.R. are that the complainant lodged F.I.R. on 18-6-2007, regarding the incident dated 4-6-2007 and contended therein that his daughter namely Mehreen aged about 16 to 17 years left house for examination but did not turn back, he was kept continued for her search and seven days back one Ishtiaque informed him on telephone that one Tariq had brought his daughter at his residence and they had stayed in his house for some days and thereafter left away the said place. The complainant lodged the complaint against said Tariq for committing Zina with his daughter.

3. That on 21-6-2007 the accused/ applicant was arrested and the abductee were medically examined and the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the abductee was recorded in which she has alleged that the accused married forcibly with her. As per prosecution story the Nikahnama could not be verified and the medical report suggested that the case has been made out against the applicant/accused but the witnesses of the marriage verified the Nikahnama. The challan had been submitted under section 365-B, P.P.C, thereafter charge was framed and three witnesses were examined by the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, contended that the accused/ applicant married with the abductee with her consent on 6-5-2007 and subsequently, left her house with her consent and residing with the applicant/accused. The dispute arose after the attitude of the abductee regarding to divorce to first wife of the applicant. The abductee has levelled the allegations that Nikah has been conducted forcibly but the witnesses of Nikahnama had verified the same.

5. Learned counsel further contended that the F.I.R. was lodged on 18-6-2007, after 14 days of the alleged incident though the complainant had knowledge of the Nikahnama and even failed to explain such delay in lodging the F.I.R. which is also mentioned in column 5 of the F.I.R. He further contended that this was a family dispute and to compel the applicant to divorce his first wife by the abductee this false case has been registered and as a result, the applicant is behind the bars for the last one year.

6. He further contended that all the story has been managed by the second wife/alleged abductee in examination-in -chief, wherein the alleged abductee has admitted that after the Nikah the applicant left her near Liaquatabad Police Station from where she went to her house and remained there for 30 days and thereafter, on telephone call of the applicant she went with the applicant. She herself came out from her house and reached near Dakkhana, Liaquatabad from there she met with the accused/applicant and both went at the house of the sister-in-law of the applicant in a taxi, where she remained resided with the accused for couple of days and thereafter the applicant/accused arranged a rented house in Korangi wherein she resided for 10 to 15 days along with first wife of the applicant, from where police arrested the applicant and recovered her as well. She further, deposed that she was remained in police station and recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. and thereafter, went to the house and from there she was brought to Court where her statement was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that from the evidence of the abductee/second wife of the applicant the case requires further inquiry as apparently the abductee was under the influence of her parents, as a result, she has recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. and 164, Cr.P.C. as well as in cross-examination she has denied all the admitted facts and in the above false case the person who having first wife and children is behind the bars for the last one year, and in presence of first marriage, commission of second marriage is not a crime.

8. That on the other hand Mr. Sabir Haider, learned A.A-G. on behalf of the State has conceded the above facts and contended that the family case has been converted into a criminal case.

9. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. Admittedly the F.I.R. was lodged after the delay of 14 days and no explanation has been given by the complainant. The complainant and his wife used to remain outside the house. The applicant/accused had visiting terms with the complainant family. It is admitted fact that the alleged victim had stated in her statement in Court that actually the Nikah was solemnized on 6-5-2007 and her signatures were obtained forcibly, but even then she remained resided at her home for 30 days and left her house by her own free-will on 4-6-2007 and remained resided with the applicant/accused along with his first wife and her children, which suggests that the matter requires further inquiry and I agree with the contention of the learned A.A-G. that a family issue has been converted into a criminal case.

10. The investigation itself shows that the witnesses of the Nikahnama supported the contention of the applicant/accused. It is nowhere mentioned that the alleged abductee, second wife of the applicant has filed any case for jactitation of marriage, hence prima facie she is still the wife of the applicant/accused therefore, matter requires further inquiry.

11. In the foregoing facts, and circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant Muhammad Tariq. Hence bail is granted subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. These are the reasons of short order dated 26-5-2008.

12. M.H./M-89/K Bail granted.