SAIF ULLAH Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.205/16, dated 04.06.2016 registered at Police Station Shahpur Saddar, District Sargodha, in respect of offences under sections 365-B, 496-A, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage, therefore, without going into deeper appreciation of evidence, it has been noticed that there is a delay of four days in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. Admittedly the "nikahnama" produced by the petitioner before the investigating officer during the course of investigation showing his marriage with the alleged abductee Mst. Toqeer Fatima @ Hadia Noreen has duly been verified as correct and apart; from "nikahnama", copy of her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the Judicial Magistrate Lahore on 18.06.2016 has also been placed on the file, wherein she has categorically stated that being sui juris she contracted marriage with the petitioner with her free-will and consent and against the wishes of her parents and due to this grudge, her father has got lodged false FIR against her husband and other in-laws. Even the other alleged abductee Mst. Amna, mother of Mst. Toqeer Fatima alias Hadia Noreen, in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. also did not implicate the petitioner as the culprit of the alleged offence. It is also an admitted fact that the alleged abductee Mst. Toqeer Fatima alias Hadia Noreen is living with the petitioner as his wife and is performing her matrimonial obligations. The above facts create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story against the petitioner, whereas it is settled law that the benefit of doubt can be extended in favour of the accused even at bail stage. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He has already joined the investigation which is complete to his extent, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars only to come out of jail on post arrest bail after a few days.
3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motive cannot be ruled out of consideration, hence this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
WA/S-92/L Petition allowed.