PATHAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This petition for grant of bail has been moved on behalf of Ghulam Murtaza, his brother Yaseen and their relative Pathan, petitioners herein, who alongwith four others were reported against on 18-4-1991 by. Yar Muhammad, complainant, at Police Station Saddar Sadiqabad, vide F.I.R. No.185, alleging that his daughter Mst. Parveen aged 13/14 years was enticed away by Mst. Jannat and Mst. Anwar (mother and sister of Ghulam Murtaza, petitioner, respectively on 12-4-1991 and then she was abducted in a Datsun car with the help of the co-accused. Mst. Parveen (abductee) was recovered on 16-5-1991 and the doctor who examined her for age found her to be 13/14 years old and opined that she was subjected to rape. In her statement made before a Magistrate on 22-5-1991 the abductee levelled allegation against Ghulam Murtaza, petitioner, for having committed rape with her while the other co-accused helped him in her abduction. The petitioners herein were arrested on 18-5-1991 whereas co-accused Mst. Jannat and Mst. Anwar were allowed pre-arrest bail. Petitioners' bail plea was declined, hence this petition.

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

3. It is contended that the abductee Mst. Parveen is of age and had voluntarily contracted marriage with Ghulam Murtaza, petitioner, and that in order to pressurize him and his relatives to get hold of the custody of the abductee the instant case was got registered. It is also submitted that Mst. Parveen (abductee) has instituted a suit for jactitation of marriage against Ghulam Murtaza, petitioner, whereas the latter has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the abductee. Both these suits are pending adjudication before the Judge Family Court, Rahim Yar Khan.

4. Since there is no allegation of rape against Yaseen and Pathan, petitioners, who are real brother and relative of Ghulam Murtaza, respectively, therefore, the question whether they really participated in the commission of the offences or not needs further inquiry. In these circumstances I am inclined to allow their prayer for bail. They shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

5. As for Ghulam Murtaza, petitioner, although there is an allegation that he committed rape with Mst. Parveen but on the other hand he has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her claiming that she is his legally wedded wife. This assertion of the petitioner has been controverted by Mst. Parveen by filing a suit for jactitation of marriage. In the circumstances the question whether Mst. Parveen is legally-wedded wife of the petitioner or not is still sub judice. In these circumstances I would allow his prayer for bail particularly for the reason that lie is in jail for the last 7 months without trial. He is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

N.H.Q./P-45/L Bail granted.