' Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the complainant a young girl of 22 years of age was allegedly kidnapped by main accused Riaz Muhammad, her neighbour, on 18-4-2004 from Sindh University Jamshoro, after she had been intoxicated. When the complainant regained her senses she found herself in a house, which per Riaz Muhammad belonged to his brother co- accused/applicant Fida Muhammad. .Thereafter, the complainant was taken to Karachi in a Bus of Police Foundation and then to Rawalpindi by train where the main accused lodged her in a hotel and forcibly committed Zina with her for three nights. Then she was taken to Taxila and kept there for a number of days in the house of main accused's maternal uncle and then she was taken to Muzaffarabad where she was kept in the house of Major Mast Gul a friend of the main accused.
There he performed Nikah ceremony with her and then he took her to Khannur Sugar Mills and then to Sadiqabad and Muzaffarabad where the complainant was lodged with the relatives of the main accused and during all this time, he committed Zina with her. Finally, she was taken to Nawabshah and finding an opportunity the complainant slipped out of the house and came to her parents home at Tando Jam, whereafter, the F.I.R. Was lodged on 19-5-2004.
2. On the basis of foregoing facts, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that nothing has been stated in the F.I.R. As against the applicant Raza Muhammad and insofar as Fida Muhammad is concerned only the complainant had been put up in his house at Sadigabad by the main accused. Secondly, per learned counsel according to the. Medical examination carried out on 20-5-2004, no signs of any violence were found on her body and neither was she found to be a virgin. ,Consequently, prima facie there is no evidence of rape insofar as this piece of evidence is concerned.
3. Next, learned counsel has submitted that the complainant has improved her version in her further statement which was recorded on 30-5-2004 after 11 days of the F.I.R. Whereby the role of the applicant Raza Muhammad has been described. Again, in her 164, Cr.P.C. Recorded on 3-6- 2004, the complainant has narrated a different story wherein not only accused Raza Muhammad has been roped in but other members of the family and the story has been given a different turn viz. That the complainant was to be used for human trafficking/prostitution. Finally, per learned counsel, the complainant had married accused Riaz Muhammad out of her own free will and had gone with him up country to visit his relations, which is supported by the fact that no complaint was lodged by the family of the complainant during the entire period when she was missing from her house. However, for some unknown reasons she had changed her mind and lodged the F.I.R. At the behest of her parents in order to blackmail and extort money from the accused. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed that bail be granted to the applicants. He has relied upon Younus Rangwala v. The State (2003 PCr.LJ 957), Shabbir v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 914), Manazir Hussain Shah v. The State (1999 PCr.LJ 86), Muhammad Azhar Nadeem v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 12), Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2000 YLR 1933), Abdul Khalique v. The State (2000 YLR 1813), Ismail v. The State (2000 YLR 338) and Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
4. Mr. Anwar Ansari learned State counsel has supported the submissions of Mr. Hakim Ali Siddqui, Advocate.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Noorul Hag Qureshi, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the delay in recording of the complainant's further statement and her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Is due to the fact that she had suffered mental trauma as a result of/ abduction etc., and consequently was not in a proper state of mind to state the facts in detail when the F.I.R.
Was registered. Per learned counsel upon the complainant's recovery the correct facts have been narrated in her 164, Cr.P.0 statement which fully involve both the applicants who are the brothers of the main accused and also other members of the family. Finally, per learned counsel two Nikahnamas are available in the police papers one dated 24-5-2004 and other dated 24 4-2004 which ex facie establish that both of them are forged. Consequently, there cannot be any question of the complainant ever giving her consent to marry the main accused. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed that this bail application be dismissed. He has relied upon Shah Muhammad v.
The State (2004 SCM R 482), Shabbir v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1039), Liaquat Ali v. Yara and others (1994 PCr.LJ 1224), Muhammad Rais Akhtar v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1110) and Abdul Rehman v. Ali Sher and others (2000 PCr.LJ 33).
6. I have heard all the learned counsel. In my opinion, this is a case of further enquiry, as firstly the complainant has not only improved upon the F.I.R. In her further statement given to the police authorities but also in her 164, Cr.P.C. Statement recorded before the concerned Magistrate. In the F.I.R., she has nominated Riaz Muhammad as being the person who had abducted her and committed Zina with her, whereas the only role given to applicant/accused Fida Muhammad is that the 'complainant had been kept in his house at Hyderabad and Sadiqabad. However in her further statement the complainant has alleged that applicant Raza Muhammad threatened her to accept the false Nikahnama between herself and accused Riaz Muhammad on pain of death. A similar role has been given to one unnamed sister of Riaz Muhammad at Muzaffarabad. Again in her 164, Cr.P.C. Statement before the Magistrate, applicant Fida Muhammad has given the role of standing guard outside the door of his house while the main accused committed Zina with the complainant. So also it would be seen that her further statement was recorded on 30-5-2004 whereas the F.I.R. Was recorded on 19-5-2004 and her statement before the Magistrate was recorded on 3-6-2004. Consequently, even if it were assumed that she only regained her senses on 30-5-2004 and was then able to reveal the true facts in her further statement before the police authorities, there is no explanation why in her statement before the judicial Magistrate she has again improved her story in order rope in co-accused Raza Muhammad etc. Again, it would be seen that during the entire period of the complainant's absence from her house, her family did not lodge any report with any authority which creates further doubt in the matter at this stage. Finally, it would be seen per the medical evidence on the record there is nothing to show that the complainant had been assaulted etc.
7. For all the foregoing reasons, I would grant this bail application. The applicants would be released from jail provided they submit surety in the amount of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Application stands disposed of.