1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.--- By this order we propose to dispose of this pre-arrest bail application, bearing Criminal Bail Application No,738 of 2001 filed on behalf of Mian Abdul Manan in a case bearing F.I.R. No,121 of 1991 of Police Station Daharki, District Ghotki, for an offence under sections 10, 11, 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 109 and 114, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.T.A.) Ghotki vide order, dated 3-5-2001.
2. ' The facts germane to the prosecution story are that on 28-8-1991 at 9-00 p.m. Complainant/S.H.O.
3. Hussain Bux Panhwar lodged F.I.R. Alleging, inter alia, that on 11-5-1991 at 5-30 p.m. Accused Abdul Nabi and Mian Abdul Manan, Peers of Bharchundi Sharif abducted the sister of Muhammad Shafi son of Muhammad Iqbal Arain resident of Daharki, namely Mst. Asma Iqbal Arain from the road near Government High School Daharki when she was returning home after having finished her examination of IXth class. It is further disclosed in the F.I.R. That accused, standing beside the road, abducted Mst. Asma in collusion with her friends Mst. Naseem Akhtar, Zarina and their brother.
4. According to F.I.R. Mst. Asma was in the custody of accused but her relatives due to fear of the accused did not lodge the complaint and had been trying to get her custody privately. Since the offence was cognizable, F.I.R. Was lodged by the S.H.O./complainant on behalf of the State, as above.
5. ' After the usual investigation, the case was sent to stand trial in the Special Court for Speedy Trial, Sukkur Division and in the charge-sheet applicant and accused Abdul Nabi were shown as absconders. On 19-1-1993, the Special Court, Sukkur Division framed the charge and thereafter the case was transferred to the Special Court for Speedy Trial at Multan where the trial of accused Abdul Nabi and applicant Mian Abdul Manan was deferred till their arrest whereas other accused were tried and at the conclusion of trial lady accused were acquitted and accused Muhammad Siddique was convicted. The said accused Muhammad Siddique filed appeal before this Court bearing Cr.A. No,D-46 of 1995 which was allowed on 19-5-1999 and Muhammad Siddique was acquitted.
6. ' The applicant, thereafter, approach this Court for protective bail which was granted for three weeks vide order, dated 2-2-2001 and after getting such protective bail, he moved application for pre-arrest bail, bearing B.A. No,2 of 2001 before the learned Special Judge, (S.T.A.) Ghotki but the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 3-5-2001. It is stated that at the time of announcement of impugned order, the applicant was not present on account of his illness and by presenting this bail application the applicant surrendered himself on 22-5-2001 when he was granted interim pre-arrest bail which has now come for the confirmation or otherwise.
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate- General appearing on behalf of the State.
8. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has, falsely, been involved and the F.I.R. Has been lodged with the delay of more than three and half months for which no plausible explanation has been given. It has, further been contended by the learned counsel that though the incident, according to F.I.R., took place in broad-daylight in the heart of the Daharki Town near the police station but instead of parents of the abducted girl, Station House Officer of the concerned police station lodged F.I.R. That too with the delay of more than three and half months. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the excuse regarding non-lodging F.I.R. By the parents for about three and a half months due to fear, appears to be cock and bull story because even the delay of one to 24 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. In the cases, like present one, has been considered to be sufficient to hold the prosecution story as doubtful. It has, also, been contended that the applicant who had all along been residing in his village Bharchundi Sharif had neither any knowledge, whatsoever, of the alleged crime nor he was ever served by any notice from the Court or tried to be arrested by the police. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel that the applicant is a respectable citizen besides the fact that he also contested the Elections in the year 1997 as a candidate for Provincial Assembly of Sindh from P.S.-I Ubaro and has performed Umras for so many times. It has, further, been contended by the learned counsel that if the applicant was wanted or absconding in this crime, he should have been meeting with various District/Divisional/Provincial Authorities on so many occasions. He has further contended that the basic conception of bail is that no innocent person's liberty can be curtailed, until and unless proves otherwise and the principle of law is that every accused person is an innocent person until his guilt is proved which requires further inquiry. It has, therefore, been contended that the applicant apprehends imminent danger of his arrest at the hands of police as the police had raided the house of the applicant for so many times since last few days with mala fide intentions on politically motivated grounds for ulterior motives and cause damage to reputation, respect and honour of the applicant. He has relied upon the cases of State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah 1992 SCM R 2192, Sardar Imdad Khan v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 272, Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, D.I.-G. Police Karachi and others v. The State 1997 SCM R 1234, Muhammad Gul and another v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 205, Nadeem Hamid v. The State PLD 1997 Kar. 494, Mirza Jawad Beg v. The State PLD 1975 Kar. 628, Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82 and Multiline Associates v.
9. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others PLD 1995 SC 423 in support of his contentions.
10. ' On the other hand Mr. Ghulam Dastagir Shahani, Additional Advocate-General for the State concedes to the above legal position and has raised no objection to the confirmation of on 22-5- 2001.
11. ' We have considered the arguments, advanced by both the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
12. ' Admittedly, the F.I.R. In the present case was lodged with the delay of more than three and half months inasmuch as the incident took place on 11-5-1991 whereas the F.I.R. Was registered on 28- 8-1991 for which no plausible explanation was furnished. Though the incident, according to F.I.R., took place in broad daylight in the heart of the Daharki Town near to the police station but instead of parents of the abducted girl, Station House Officer of the concerned police station lodged F.I.R.
13. That too, as said above, with the delay of more than three and half months. Moreover, the excuse regarding non-lodging F.I.R. By the parents for about three and a half months due to fear, does not appear to be a justifiable ground as the delay of one to 24 hours has, consistently, been considered doubtful in the cases, like present one. The basic conception of bail is that no innocent person's liberty is to be curtailed, until and unless proves otherwise and the principle of law is that every accused person is an innocent person until his guilt is proved which requires further inquiry.
14. According to the learned counsel the applicant apprehends imminent danger of his arrest at the hands of police as the police had raided the house of the applicant for so many times since last few days with mala fide intentions on politically motivated grounds for ulterior motives and intends to cause damage to reputation, respect and honour of the applicant.
15. ' In these circumstances, we are inclined to confirm interim to the applicant on 22-5-2001 and these are the reasons for the same.