Petitioner has sought his post arrest bail in case FIR No. 315/04 dated 9.8.2004 registered u/S. 10(2)/16 offence of Zina (Ent of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Luddan, District, Vehari.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he abducted Mst. Nooran Bibi daughter of the complainant alongwith the other co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the FIR and story of the same is concocted one; that the petitioner is behind the bars for; that co-accused namely Muhammad Altaf has already been granted bail and the petitioner under the rule of consistency also deserves for the concession of bail. Further submits that investigation is complete and petitioner is not required by the local police for further investigation.
That Mst. Nooran Bibi the alleged abductee during her statement u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. dated 30.9.2005 had stated that she was not abducted by any one.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that petitioner is nominated in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Petitioner is, behind the bars. Investigation in the case' is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of trial and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of further investigation and no useful purpose would be served to put the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Muhammad Altaf co-accused has already been granted bail and under the rule of consistency the petitioner also deserves for the concession of bail.
Further more Mst. Nooran Bibi the alleged abductee got her statement recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate Ist Class, Khanewal on 30.9.2005, wherein she had categorically deposed that she was not abducted by any one and FIR No. 8/04 an FIR No. 315/04 were got lodged by her father complainant with malafide intention and despite his undertaking her father-complainant did not allow her to accompany her husband-petitioner.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.