AYAZ AL Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Brief facts giving rise to the present pre-arrest bail application are that on 9-1-2004 at 5-00 a.m. the complainant Nisar Ahmed along with his family members including his daughter Mst. Nazia were sleeping in the house when the applicant along with three other persons including co-accused Gul Hassan armed with guns and pistols forcibly abducted Mst. Nazia aged about 14/15 years. The complainant, raised cries on which P.Ws. Abdul Hameed and Khalid Hussain arrived. Such F.I.R. was lodged as Crime No.2 of 2004 at P.S. Waleed. The applicant moved pre-arrest bail application before the Sessions Court but the same was dismissed. Hence the present bail application.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that Mst. Nazia and Ayaz Ali are husband and wife as per Nikahnama dated 11-1-2004; that in her statement under section 164, Cr. P.C. she has stated that she was not abducted; that the police have recommended the case to be disposed of as B-Class and the summary is pending before the Magistrate for assign appropriate orders. He has further stated that Mst. Nazia is not a minor girl.

3. Learned State Counsel has no objection to the grant of bail on the ground that Mst. Nazia in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case as she claimed that she was not abducted and she is wife of the applicant; that two P.Ws. Khalid and Abdul Majeed have exonerated the accused Gul Hassan in their section 164. Cr.P.C. statements, though the complaint has nominated him as one of the accused in the F.I.R. He has further stated that Mst. Nazia was medically examined and as per Medical Certificate her age is about 15/16 years therefore, she is not minor. He has conceded that the police has recommended the case to be disposed of as B-class and the summary is pending before the Magistrate.

4. I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and find that entire case hinges upon the evidence of Mst. Nazia who has not supported the prosecution case. She clearly stated in her 164, Cr.P.C. statement that she was not abducted and that she is wife of the applicant. The Nikahnama has been produced which shows that Mst. Nazia and applicant Ayaz Ali had contracted marriage on 11-1-2004. Further the police has recommended the case to be disposed of under B-Class and summary is pending before the Magistrate for passing orders.

5. The police papers reveal that on 6 th April, 2004 the complainant produced a Nikahnama performed in-between Mst. Nazia and one Wajid Ali Chandio on 10-8-2003 showing that Mst. Nazia was already married. In this connection it is pointed out that in the F.I.R. the complainant did not claim that Mst. Nazia was already married or that she was wife of one Wajid Ali Chandio but on the contrary from the F.I.R. impression is gathered the Mst. Nazia was unmarried and was residing in the house of her father viz. compainant. However this point can be properly examined at the time of trial when the parties lead evidence on their respectiv4 points. Presently Mst. Nazia claims to be the wife of the applicant.

6. In view of the above position, the case of the applicant requires further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. therefore, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail

7. Consequently, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 on furnishing solvent surety with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. The application is allowed.

8. H.B.T./A-125/K Bail granted.