' SYED HUSSAIN MAZHAR KALEEM, J.--- Above titled revision petition is directed against the order of Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dadyal, dated 28-9-2007, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts forming background of the revision petition are that a case under sections 10/11, 16, the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985 was registered against the petitioner and another at Police Station Dadyal on the complaint of Abdul Jabbar. It was reported that his daughter was married to Umer Rashid. On 20-8-2007 she disappeared and he informed the police on 21-8-2007. The complainant personally inquired about the matter and came to know that four months prior to the occurrence Muhammad Shah Jahan son of Muhammad Ali Shah resident of Bhalwal came to their village and stayed for 4/5 days. He gave locket (Taveez) to the victim and developed relations- with her. Later on the accused used to contact the victim through telephone.
He seduced her to commit Zina and contract second marriage. On 20-8-2007 he abducted her with the help of Tanveer Shah and others.
3. After registration of the case, the accused petitioner applied for bail before the trial Court but it was refused vide order, dated 13-9-2007. The second bail application was also rejected by Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dadyal through the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the occurrence took place on 20-8-2007 while the F.I.R. Was lodged on 26-8-2007 and the delay was not explained by the prosecution. Mst. Sobia 19 years of age was unmarried. She contracted Nikah with the petitioner with her free will. No proof for her previous marriage was brought on record. The report was lodged after registration of Nikahnama, thus, the allegations of abduction and Zina against the accused-petitioner were doubtful. The Court below failed to appreciate that the prosecution version was not worth consideration and submitted that the case against accused-petitioner requires further probe, therefore, by accepting the revision petition, he may be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the victim was abducted on 20-8-2007 and the police was informed on 21-8-2007. The complainant personally inquired about the matter and came to know that the accused petitioner abducted her. The case was registered and she was recovered from Darul Aman, Lahore.' The accused was nominated in the F.I.R. The victim also alleged him for abduction and committing Zina with her. The allegation was supported by her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. And it was further corroborated by medical report. A prima facie case existed against the accused-petitioner and it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. A perusal of the statement of victim recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Shows that she a student of B.A. Final was 18 years of age. Peed Syed Muhammad Shah Jahan a "Saint" resident of Sargodha came to her house and stayed for 4/5 days. He gave her spiritual treatment as she was sick. Later on he used to contact her through telephone. On 20-8-2007 when she was standing outside of her college, Tanveer Shah came there and asked the victim to sit in car as her mother was waiting for her. She accompanied but he turned his car towards Mirpur, the victim protested upon which the accused took out his pistol and asked her to keep silent. She was taken to Lahore where Shah Jahan accused was present. She was locked in a room and on 22-8-2007, some unknown persons came there, they pressed upon to marry the accused and forcibly obtained her signature on some papers. During detention the accused-petitioner committed Zina and also threatened to kill her in case she made any attempt to go with her relatives or making any statement against the accused.
8. It may be mentioned here that Nikah is a contract based upon free will of the spouses, use of force for the purpose is not permitted because such an act creates serious doubt about authenticity of the agreement. In the present case the victim was taken to Lahore. About 300 Kms.
Away from home she was forced to sign Nikahnama and others documents. She was also pressurized to make statement before Special Judicial Magistrate in favour of the accused. Later on due to unfavourable circumstances she was sent to Darul Aman from where Azad Jammu and Kashmir Police recovered her. Afterwards she appeared before Sub-Division Magistrate, Dadyal and recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein she alleged the petitioner for committing offence under sections 10/11, Z.H.A. Medical report pertaining to the victim shows that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. It may be added further that the statement indicates that on the day of occurrence she sat in the car as she was not expecting such a heinous criminal act from so-called pious person or his colleagues, therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner that the victim went to Lahore with her free will merits no consideration.
9. In light of the facts listed above, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case existed against accused-petitioner and it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail to him, therefore, finding no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.