1. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 136 dated 24.4.2007 registered under Section 365-B at P.S. Ahmad Nagar, District. Gujranwala.
2. 2.According to the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other accused abducted daughter of the complainant, namely, Maroof Qamar.
3. 3.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged abductee had married with the accused Muhammad Younas and in this regard, nikah has been duly solemnized according to Sharia and thereafter registered in accordance with law; that the abductee being suit juris had of her own free-will and accord contracted marriage with Muhammad Younas and the petitioner has been mala fidely involved in the case; that according to the birth certificate issued by the Union Council, the alleged abductee is 18 years and 4 months old; that the main stress of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the registration of the case, the police had earlier recorded the statement of the abductee namely, Maroof Qamar on 21.5.2007 supporting the contention raised above; that she had of her own freewill and volition being sui juris had contracted marriage with Muhammad Younas and that no one has abducted her; that thereafter when the I.O. made an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate for getting recording the statement of the alleged abductee, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the learned Judicial Magistrate disallowed the same, stating therein in his order dated 21.5.2007 that the alleged abductee Maroof Qamar's statement had already been recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the said statement is sufficient as such he refused to record the statement of the alleged abductee under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; that it is also on the record that when the I.O. made an application seeking medical examination of.the alleged abductee before the learned Judicial Magistrate, she refused to get herself medically examined as such the application was dismissed; that it was only later on that the alleged abductee moved a petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, wherein a direction was issued to the LO. to record subsequent second statement of the abductee under Section 161 Cr.P.C. although it has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 25.5.2007 that the alleged abductee had admitted that firstly she has appeared before the police along with the accused and made a statement in their favour and now she wants to make a statement against them and in these circumstances, mala fides of the police and the complainant are apparent. Moreover, the petitioner has also produced an attendance certificate to the effect that the petitioner is a school teacher and he was on duty on the 10th March, 2007 in school and the said presence of the petitioner in the school also shows that he has been falsely involved in the case.
4. 4.On the other hand, the learned DPG has opposed the bail application, stating that according to the subsequent statement of the abductee recorded by the police, she has fully implicated the petitioner as accused.
5. 5.Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. 6.Admittedly, the I.O. had recorded the statement of the alleged abductee under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after the registration of the case, as such at that time she cannot be stated to be under pressure of the accused persons to make statement under coercion when she was in the custody of the police. Moreover, she was also produced before the learned llaqa/Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and at that time she could speak against the accused person and could get her statement recorded controverting her earlier statement recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 21.5.2007. Moreover, when the I.O. moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate for conducting medical examination of the alleged abductee, she was not willing for having herself medically examined. Therefore, the subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the direction of the learned Sessions Judge Gujranwala, wherein she had admitted that first she appeared before the police alongwith the accused and made statement in their favour and now she wants to make statement against them shows mala fides of the police and the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner who is a school teacher was not present at the time of occurrence and as is evident from the attendance certificate issued by the Headmaster Govt. Middle School Manghat Neechai that he was present in school at that time. The attendance register also shows the presence of the petitioner in school.
7. In view of the above perspective, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry.
7. Therefore, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.7.2007 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.