' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This order proposes to decide two bail petitions, one in hand and the other Criminal Miscellaneous No,4472-B of 2005, as both arose out of the same case and raised similar questions of law/facts.
2. Petitioners in both the petitions were refused bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13-6-2005 in case against them vide F.I.R. No,253, dated 4-4-2005 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered with Police Station, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad. They have now filed instant petitions for the same relief.
3. Gravamen of the charge as it appears from the F.I.R. Is that petitioners in absence of complainant Abdul Razzaq on 13-3-2005 abducted his wife Mst. Afshan Noreen, when his mother was also away to Bazar, leaving the suckling baby at home. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. That on inquiry by the complainant, it revealed to him that his wife was seen going along with two persons and a woman riding in a white motorcar. Complainant further narrated that his mother-in-law informed him about abduction by the petitioners. After Registration of case, petitioners apprehended their arrest and filed applications for pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, but the same were dismissed, as noted above.
4. It was contended that the petitioners are absolutely innocent and have been falsely involved in the case out of enmity/animosity of the complainant/police. It was further submitted that the alleged abductee, deserted house of the complainant out of her own and filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the learned Jude Family Court, Lahore, which has already been decreed in her favour. It was further argued that the abductee since desertion of house of the complainant is in Darul Aman, wherefrom her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded by the learned Magistrate, in which she did not implicate the petitioners in the offence charged and instead deposed. That she left the house of her own accord due to ill-treatment of the complainant. It was also emphasized that after statement of the abductee case against the petitioners is proved to be fake and at the least the same has become that of further inquiry, entitling them to confirmation of bail already granted by this Court.
5. Bail was opposed with the arguments that the petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. With attribution of abduction of a married woman, hence they may not be conferred the concession of bail before arrest. It was also argued that according to the F.I.R. Occurrence took place on 13-3- 2005 and statement of the abductee was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 23-3-2005 and during this period of nine days, she remained with the petitioners, thus they are not entitled to the relief prayed.
6. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record, with their assistance. The Investigating Officer after spot inquiry on directives of this Court, informed that date of occurrence, as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is not correct because according to his inquiry, the alleged abductee on 13-3-2005 was living with the complainant and deserted his house only couple of days earlier to her statement before the learned Magistrate and went directly to Darul Aman where she is living till today. Petitioners have produced a receipt issued by Lady Superintendent, Darul Aman, Rajgarh, Lahore, according to which Mst. Afshan Noreen daughter of Muhammad Ishaq was admitted there on 23-3-2005. A press clipping of daily newspaper "Din", dated 25-3-2005 has also been produced to show that Mst.
Afshan Noreen reached the office of the newspaper of her own, as her husband was addicted to intoxicant. All this revealed that Mst. Afshan Noreen did not desert house of the complainant on 13- 3-2005, as mentioned in the F.I.R. And she was got admitted in Darul Am= through office of daily newspaper "Din" on 23-3-2005 where she is living till to-date. Copy of plaint filed by Mst. Afshan Noreen through Darul Aman also revealed that dissolution of marriage was prayed by her on account of development of aversion against the complainant. It was further mentioned in the plaint that she left the house of the complainant on 23-5-2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that her suit has already been decreed, dissolving her marriage with the complainant. In these circumstances, charge against the petitioners appears to be doubtful and their persons are not needed for investigation purposes, as the alleged abductee is already living in Darul Aman. Apprehension of arrest by the petitioners in an apparently fake case, is not misplaced.
7. For the reasons noted above, both the petitions are accepted and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed.