ABDUL SAMAD Versus THE STATE

Abdul Samad with his two brothers, namely, Muhammad Ramzan and Abdul Ghaffar, and his maternal uncle Ladha and one Allah Bachaya, have applied for grant of post‑arrest bail (Cr. M. No. '743‑B‑87 while Mst. Hasso wife of afore‑mentioned Ladha and his daughter Mst. Kauser have applied for pre‑arrest bail (Cr.M.No. 742‑B‑87).in a case registered against them and one Mst. Naziran (absconder) for having abducted Mst. Hameeda from the house of her father Noor Muhammad complainant on the night between 2/3‑6‑1987. The incident was reported at Police Station, Saddar D.G. Khan on 4‑6‑1987.

2. On 9‑6‑1987 Mst. Hameedan (abductee) was produced in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, D.G. Khan, by an advocate for recording her statement. Learned Assistant Commissioner sent the matter to City Magistrate who recorded the abductee's statement wherein she stated to have not been abducted by any body and that she had eloped with Abdul Samad (petitioner) because her father (complainant) was bent upon giving her in marriage to one Muhammad Hussain against her wishes. She requested t6tat she be sent to Darul Aman apprehending danger at the hands of her parents. This prayer of the abductee was acceded to. As according to prosecution, about a fortnight prior to the alleged occurrence she had been married with Muhammad Hussain, therefore, her finger prints were obtained for comparison with her alleged thumb impression on Nikahnama dated 13‑5‑1987. The opinion of finger prints expert is in positive. On the other hand Abdul Samad, petitioner, claims that the abducctee was unmarried whom he married at Lahore on 4‑6‑1987. He was supported by the abductee in her earlier statement dated 9‑6‑1987 and 11‑6‑1987 made before Magistrate 1st Class and Assistant Commissioner D.G. Khan, respectively.

3. On 14‑6‑1987 she was brought in the Court of Assistant Commissioner at the request of the complainant, father of the abductees. She expressed her desire to go to her father's house as her fears had since been alloyed.

4. Abdul Samad, Abdul Ghaffar, Muhammad Ramzan, Ladha and Allah Bachaya (Petitioners in Cr.M. No. No. 743‑B‑87) were arrested in this case on 29‑6‑1987. SI Muhammad Shafi who is present in Court with record, states that the investigation is 'still in progress because one of, the accused Mst. Naziran is absconding.

5. The petitioners post‑arrest bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this (Cr. M. No.743‑B‑87) application. Mst. Hasso and Mst. Kausar (petitioner in Cr. M. No. 742‑B‑87) were allowed interim pre‑arrest bail by me on 16‑8‑1987 and this matter is also before me for disposal. This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid, matters.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State assisted by learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the record.

7. Admittedly here is delay of two days lodging the FIR and the abductee in her two statements, dated 9‑6‑1987 and 11‑6‑1987, made before a Magistrate and the Assistant Commissioner respectively, absolved the petitioners of the allegation of abduction and rape. In these statements she also denied to have been married Muhammad Hussain on 13‑5‑1987 and instead admitted to have contracted marriage with Abdul Samad, petitioner, on 4‑6 1987. However. subsequently, in her statement dated 9‑7‑1987 made before a D . S . P. , she supported the prosecution. The investigation in this case is almost complete.

8. Without expressing on merits, but in view of abductee',4 statements made by her before the Magistrate and the police absolving as well as implicating the petitioners, I would say that it would require further inquiry as to which of her three statements is true? Consequently, I allow petition of Abdul Samad, Abdul Ghaffar, Muhammad Ramzan, Ladha and Allah Bachaya (petitioners) and direct that they be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail‑bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount each to1 the satisfaction of A.C. Duty Magistrate, D.G. Khan.

9. While arguing for grant of pre‑arrest bail to the lady petitioners, learned counsel has submitted that they were named in the F. I. R with the purpose of pressurising their relative Abdul Samad, the principal accused, to produce the abductee. Furthermore, they were not named as accused by the abductee in her two statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C, therefore, they appear to have been falsely implicated. The contentions of the learned counsel are not without force. The petitioners are ladies. They have since joined investigation. Consequently, I allow their petition (Cr.M. No.742‑B‑87) as well. The interim pre‑arrest bail granted to them earlier is hereby confirmed.

S. A. /A‑238/L Bail allowed.