EHTSHAM alias SHAN Versus State
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J .---The allegation against the petitioner, Ehtesham alias Shan, as per FIR No.132/2016, dated 26.6.2016, under section 365-B, P.P.C., registered at police station Shah Nikder, District Sargodha is, that he being armed with rifle, joined by his armed co-accused, forcibly abducted Mst. Mafia Naureen, real sister of Amjad Pervaiz (complainant) at about 10.30 p.m. on 25.6.2016 within the view of Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Aziz; the complainant was not at home, when his sister went to the neighbouring house of Mst. Shazia Parveen, wherefrom she did not return, having allegedly been taken away by the accused.
2. Mst. Mafia Naureen, the alleged abdcutee joined investigation on 9.8.2016 and contended before the Investigating Officer that she had been forcibly abducted and raped by Shan accused (petitioner), who married off her to his companion Sajid on 2.7.2016. She reiterated the said stance under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 10.8.2016. She was medically examined on 10.9.2016, more than a month after she returned to her house.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the alleged abductee stayed at Darul Aman from 23.7.2016 to 6.8.2016. She appeared before the learned magistrate, Khushab, firstly, on 23.7.2016 and secondly, on 6.8.2016 in this regard. She rendered identical statements before the learned magistrate on both the occasions, to the effect, that she found herself in danger of being married to an old man, therefore, she left her house and married Sajid of her own on 2.7.2016, before she decided to take refuge in Darul Aman. She presented two written applications before the learned magistrate on both the times, which contained the same substance, as she deposed about verbally before the court. When she decided to leave Darul Aman, she also stated before the magistrate that she intended to accompany her maternal uncle and brother-in-law, who were, of course, present there on the said occasion and none from the accused, anywhere near.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has drawn attention of this court to rapat No.70, recorded on 29.6.2016 at police station Industrial Area, Islamabad, which revealed that the alleged abductee was found roaming about aimlessly in the company of Ehtesham alias Shan (petitioner), Ansar and Sajid and no one from them could tell the police the purpose of their strolling in the area, falling within the jurisdiction of the said police station, whereon they were booked under sections 55/109, Cr.P.C. The alleged abductee could easily inform the police about her alleged abduction and forcible violation by the male-companions, including the petitioner, but she said nothing of the sort and managed her release from the custody of the police along with her friends by submitting bail bonds before the learned magistrate concerned. It all seemingly reflected on the veracity of the allegation that she had been abducted and raped by the accused/petitioner or anyone else. She joined her family again on 6.8.2016, but she took another three days to join the investigation and render statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., through which she apparently supported the prosecution case, followed by a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of the same kind on 10.8.2016. The probability could not be ruled out that she might have succumbed to the pressure of her family to render those statements. Her earlier statements before the learned magistrate, that she made on 23.7.2016 and 6.8.2016, when kept in juxtaposition with her statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and 164, Cr.P.C., would turn the prosecution case one of two versions, making it difficult at this stage to pick a particular one as true and to reject the other as false. The alleged victim filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against Sajid co-accused on 8.11.2016, about three months after she returned to her family, which is still pending adjudication. Who knows that she might have been a consenting partner to the entire episode, which factor may, however, be taken care of in better terms by the learned trial court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. Mere involvement of the petitioner in eleven other criminal cases of various nature, without conviction in any, may hardly impede grant of his plea for bail. There exist sufficient reasons to believe that his case called for further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Therefore, this application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
WA/E-8/L Bail granted.