GHULAM RASOOL Versus STATE

ORDER

It is contended that already in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2004-B of 1983, co-accused Nazir Ahmad was allowed bail by this Court in this very case, and further that as the abductee made contradictory statements at different times, it came out to be a case of further inquiry. The complainant, mother alleged in the F.I.R that the abductee was already married to one Muhammad Akram, whereas she herself in a civil suit and criminal complaint averred than she had entered into a marriage with the petitioner of her own free-will, and that she had neither been abducted nor ravished. Reliance was placed upon 1982 P Cr. L J 1066, in which it was laid down that if an abductee makes contradictory statements, it comes out to be a case of further inquiry and the accused be allowed bail.

2. Learned counsel .for the State stresses the factum of her Nikah with Akram, whicn, according to him, had taken place earlier in time, and that in presence thereof, she could not, enter into a second marriage.

3. In view of contradictory statements of the abductee herself and the rival claims of marriage, it really seems to be a case of further inquiry. She was sui juris when abducted. There was possibility of her entering into marriage with the petitioner. Conversely, it was equally possible that she may have been married earlier to her cousin Akram, and, at the same time, it was open to show that either of the marriage was fake. Accordingly, some evidence shall be needed to sort it out. In the meantime, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

S . G . D .

Bail allowed.