' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case. F.I.R. No,471 dated 3-9-2004 registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station, Civil Lines Gujranwala. Earlier his bail application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gujranwala, vide his order dated 7-12-2004.
2. The allegations against the petitioner as mentioned in the F.I.R. Are that he had abducted Mst.
Zarina. Daughter of the complainant Muhammad Raffique on the instigation of his brother Shahbaz and father Abdul Ghafoor.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 6-10- 2004 and is behind the bars since then; that two nominated co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Shahbaz and Abdul Ghafoor were declared innocent by the police during investigation and Shahbaz accused was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala and on the basis of rule of consistency the petitioner is entitled to bail; that there is considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. As the occurrence had taken place on 29-8-2004 but the matter was reported to the police on 3-9-2004 and that there is no witness of alleged abduction and the only witness is of Wajj Takkar who is the real nephew of the complainant. The petitioner at the time of occurrence was minor.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the F.I.R. And the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 7-12-2004.
5. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. As he had abducted Mst. Zarina, daughter of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that she has not been recovered so far. Petitioner's case is different from the case of the co-accused, namely, Shahbaz and Abdul Ghafoor as they were declared innocent by the police and Shahzad and Iqbal co-accused were nominated through a supplementary statement by the complainant. The major role of abduction has been assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R. And the matter is still in investigation and non-recovery of the abductee up to now should not have been taken so lightly to state that if the abductee is minor the petitioner was also of the age of 17 at the time of occurrence. No ground for bail at this stage qua the petitioner. Resultantly, the bail petition is dismissed in limine.