The learned counsel seeks pre-arrest bail of petitioner in F.I.R. No, 469/07 dated 20.10.2007 under Section 365-B 380 PPC registered at P.S. Athara Hazari District Jhang.
2.Briefly according to the F.I.R. the allegation against the petitioner and co-accused is that they forced their entry into the house of the complainant and forcibly took away his 15/16 years old daughter Shakeela. According to the allegation accused also took away cash and jewelry of different kind.
3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the occurrence allegedly took place on 20.10.2007 but the same was reported on 25.10.2007. On record a complaint is available which was filed by Mst. Shakkeela against the complainant of the F.I.R. etc. The learned counsel also referred to Writ Petiton No, 11614/07 which was disposed of by me on 5.12.2007 with direction to the police that version of the accused and Shakkeela and petitioner handed over custody of Mst. Shakeela to the complainant and thereafter procured her statement under coercion according to the wishes of the complainant.
4.On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that investigation in this case is complete and the petitioner has been found guilty. According to them case filed by Mst. Shakeela was dismissed on account of non prosecution and in habeas corpus petition under Section 491 Cr. P.C. Mst. Shakeela made a statement against the petitioner whereby alleging that she was abducted by the petitioner as stated in the F.I.R.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Mst. Shakeela was handed over by police to the complainant and thereafter she changed her stance but the Cr.P.C. before the Ex-justice of the Peace whereby a direction was issued to recover Mst. Shakeela from the custody of the complainant. She was produced before the learned Sessions Judge on 9.4.2008 and her statement was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge which is as under:- "Abdul Rehman1foripielated to me in any manner. I am living with my parents. I am un-married. No body has been prevented me from going anywhere. None has detained me.
After recording her staternent, Mst. Shakeela was' allowed to go with her parents by the learned Sessions Judge as she wished. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No, 425-H/2008 which was also dismissed in limine vide order dated 12.5.2008. Thus, in the presence of the above record, the, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mst. Shakeela was forcibly removed from the petitioner and handed after to the complainant cannot be attached much credence. The record also shows that Write petition No, 11614/07 was also filed by the petitioner for quashment of the instant F.I.R which was disposed of by me with direction that I.O. would investigate the same strictly in accordance with law yet petitioner filed another Writ petition No, 5188/08 which was placed before another Bench and prayed that proceedings in the instant F.I.R. i,e, investigation be stopped. That is clear disobedience on part of the petitioner of orders of this court passed in Writ Petition No, 11614/07 wherein investigation was directed strictly on merit. Such an accused person/petitioner still expects extraordinary concession from this court.
6. The record also shows that more than once petitioner filed application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge Jhang. His application each time were dismissed on account of non prosecution. Reference may be made to order of the learned Sessions Judge Jhang dated 18.4.2008 order dated 9.6.2008 whereby proceedings under Section 514 Cr.P.C were also initiated.
The learned counsel has cited three judgments i,e, 1995 P.Cr.LJ 943 1876 SCMR 157 and 2007 P.Cr.LJ 1455 which relate to post arrest bail applications. Everyone knows that consideration for post arrest and pre-arrest bails are different hence it is observed that above citations are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned counsel has referred to 2006 P.Cr.LJ 692 which relates to pre-arrest bail. In the above case no direct role was attributed to the accused whereas the petitioner is the principal accused in the instant case. In the above case the abductee had also exonerated the accused persons from commission of the offence and abductee also verified the Nikah with the accused whereas in the instant case as noted above Mst. Shakeela declined Nikah with petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge hence facts and circumstances of this case are also distinguishable from the present case.
7.In view of the above detailed reasoning this application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed.