1. ' The applicant has prayed for pre-arrest bail under section 498-A read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In Crime No.52 of 2001 of Police Station, Warrah for offence punishable under sections 11/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979; sections 148, 149, 337-H(ii) and 344, P. P. C .
2. ' Brief facts of the case as stated in the F.I.R. Are that on 17-6-2001 at about 9-30 a.m. Complainant namely Abdul Qadir reported that he along with his daughter Mst. Noor Bakht aged about 26 years widow of Moula Bux Brohi 'were standing at Master Jo Lauro at about 8-30 a.m. Meanwhile accused Ahmed Alim, Nadir Ali, Manzoor, Mithal, Mashooq Ali, Sikandar Ali, Mehboob Ali, Madad Ali, Shaman Ali, Nishan and Rajab Ali came there who were armed with deadly weapons after firing in the air abducted his daughter Mst. Noor Bakht.
3. ' Heard Mr. Muhammad Saleem Jessar learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Habib-ur- Rehman, learned Asstt. A.-G. Learned Advocate for the applicant argued that the appellant is school teacher and .Has been falsely implicated in the matter. It was further contended that no specific role of abduction or committing Zina-bil-Jabr was attributed to him. Incident was taken place on 17-6-2001 at 8-30 a.m. Whereas report was lodged with a delay of about one hour whereas distance between the place of Wardat and police station is only 2 kilometers. It was further contended that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such inordinate delay. Learned Advocate further contended that further statement of complainant was recorded by the police on 20-7-2001 whereby he has exonerated co-accused Ahmed. Ali, Nadir Ali, Mashooq Ali, Sikandar Ali and Mehboob Ali that they had been implicated due to misunderstanding. The police has also exonerated Ahmed Ali, Nadir Ali and Mashooq Ali, Sikandar Ali and Mehboob Ali and let off them under section 169, Cr.P.C. The abductee also in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 29-6-2001 has not alleged the allegation of Zina against all the accused including applicant. From the police papers it is apparent that abductee was recovered while she was sitting on the rear seat of motorcycle and on seeing the police she was thrown away from motorcycle and driver of motorcycle ran away. No allegation of hue and cry by the abductee has been alleged. It also appears that no medical examination was conducted to prove that whether any Zina has been committed or not. Two arrested accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court on 4-2-2005 whereas complainant himself has exonerated 5 persons named in the F.I.R. Against which case has been dropped by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. No specific role has been assigned to applicant except that of ineffective firing which at the most fall under section 337-H(ii), P.P.C. Punishable up to 3 years. The prosecution story is clouded under the doubt as the complainant himself exonerated co-accused whose name has been mentioned by him under F.I.R. In case of Baloo alias Piyar Ali v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1508 a Division Bench of this Court granted bail in a case registered under section 13(iii) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that since some of the accused in the case had already been acquitted and other has been enlarged on bail, accused was entitled to bail on the principle of rule of consistency. It was further held that long absconcion of the accused could be ignored whether the case needs further inquiry. In the instant case the story of the prosecution has been clouded with doubt as the co-accused persons have been exonerated by the complainant himself and accordingly the case has become of two versions, the applicant is therefore, admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.