Abdul RasheedSajid Advocate
2011 P Cr. L J 1549
[Lahore]
Before Manzoor Ahmad
Malik, J
MUHAMMAD YAR---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 269-B of 2011, decided on
27th January, 2011.
Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Penal
Code (XLV of 1860), S.496-A---Enticing or taking away or detaining with
criminal intent a woman---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Alleged abductee,
daughter of complainant, in her two statements made before Magistrate on
different dates had not mentioned
anything regarding her abduction, whereas in
her subsequent statements recorded by the Police and under S.164,
Cr.P.C. she had implicated the accused---Mala fides on the part of the
complainant for false implication of accused could not be ruled out---Ad
interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused was confirmed in
circumstances.
Malik Muhammad Ghazanfar Ali Khokhar for Petitioner.
Arshad Mahmood, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the
State.
Bashir Ahmad Qureshi for the Complainant.
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Muhammad Yar,
petitioner, seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.773 of 2010 dated
9-11-2010 offence under section 496-A, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City
Depalpur, District Okara. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that
he along with his co-accused enticed away/abducted Mst. Kausar Bibi daughter of
the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of
this petition, contends that as per F.I.R. Mst. Kausar Bibi daughter of the
complainant was enticed away/abducted on 8-11-2010; that as a matter of fact
she was not abducted or enticed away by anybody which is clear from the
statement which she made before the learned Magistrate on 10-11-2010 wherein
she stated that she has been ousted by her husband after giving beating and
even her parents have refused to allow her to live with them; that the alleged abductee
further stated that she has serious apprehension to life and she wants to live
in Darulaman; that in the said statement she did not say anything regarding her
alleged abduction; that thereafter she again appeared before the learned
Magistrate on 25-11-2010 and stated that she wanted to go to the house of her
parents; that in both these statements there is no mention that said Mst.
Kausar Bibi was abducted or enticed away by the petitioner or anybody; that the
petitioner is owner of a plot in Lohariwala Depalpur which is close to the
house of Muhammad Abdullah witness of this F.I:R. who is pressurizing the
petitioner to sell that plot in his favour on throwaway price and on his
refusal, on the asking of the said
Muhammad Abdullah a false case has been registered against the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
complainant opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is
nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific allegation of abduction; that Mst.
Kausar Bibi victim got recorded her statement under sections 161 and 164 Code
of Criminal Procedure wherein she fully implicated the petitioner in the
commission of crime; that section 376, P.P.C. has also been added in the F.I.R.; that there is no mala fide on the
part of the complainant and there is sufficient incriminating evidence against
the petitioner; that the petitioner has been found guilty during the course of
investigation and the offence alleged against him falls within the prohibitory
clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General though opposes
this bail petition but states that the Police in its investigation has verified
the fact that Mst. Kausar Bibi made voluntary statements before the learned
Magistrate on two occasions and in fact she has a liaison with the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that on 8-11-2010 Mst. Naila Bibi alias Rani and
Jameel Shehnaz came to the house of the complainant and enticed away daughter
of the complainant namely Mst. Kausar Bibi, however, later on Muhammad Ramzan
and Muhammad Abdullah informed him that Kausar Bibi had been enticed
away/abducted by the petitioner and his co-accused. Said Mst. Kausar Bibi
appeared before the learned Magistrate on 10-11-2010 i.e. after registration of
the F.I.R. and made a statement which is to the effect that her husband has
turned her out of his house and even
her parents are not allowing her to live with them and she has serious
apprehension to her life. She further stated that she wants to live in
Darulaman. She was sent to Darulaman. Then she made another statement before
the learned Magistrate on 25-11-2010 wherein she stated that now she wants to
go to the house of her parents as she has no apprehension to her life. In both
these statements she has not mentioned anything regarding her abduction. These
circumstances create doubt in the prosecution case. Though no specific mala
fide has been alleged by the petitioner and he has stated that witness of the
case namely Muhammad Abdullah is pressurizing him to sell his plot in his
favour. But mala fide can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the
case. In this case the alleged abductee while appearing before the learned
Magistrate on 10-11-2010 and 25-11-2010 has not stated anything regarding her
`abduction whereas in her subsequent statements, which were recorded by the
police and under section 164, Cr.P.C, she has implicated the petitioner. In the
circumstances, mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication
of the petitioner cannot be ruled A out. Therefore, this is a fit case for the
grant of bail before arrest. This petition is accordingly allowed and the ad
interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated
11-1-2011 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount
to" the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. Before parting with this order, it is clarified
that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and relevant
only for the disposal of this bail petition, which shall not influence the
learned trial Court in any manner whatsoever.
Pre-arrest
bail allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment