' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- The petitioners seek confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them by this Court on 20-2-2009 in case F.I.R. No,283 of 2008 dated 8-8-2008 registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. At Police Station Sadder Sangla Hill, District Nankana Sahib.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioners as per narration of F.I.R. Are that they along with their accomplice Asghar had abducted the daughter of the complainant for the purpose of Zina.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an unexplained delay for four months in lodging of the F.I.R. He has particularly referred to the narration of F.I.R. According to which the complainant has himself expressed his apprehension that there is a possibility that one Asghar, main accused, might have taken the abductee abroad, therefore, rest of co-accused persons have absolutely no role whatsoever in the abduction of the abductee. No recovery has so far been effected from the petitioners. He further argues that one of the eyewitnesses of the occurrence Ashiq had falsely deposed against the petitioners due to previous enmity between him and the accused Ashfaq, therefore, possibility of false implication of the petitioners in this case cannot be ruled out and mala fides on the part of the complainant are evident because there is previous enmity between the complainant and one of the petitioners. He lastly argued that as per police investigation all the allegations levelled against the petitioners were found false.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes bail application of the petitioners and submits that there is no previous enmity between the parties, therefore, there are no mala fides on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioners with the commission of said offence. The abductee is yet to be recovered and until and unless she is recovered nothing definite can be ascertained about her abduction. He further argues that all the offences under which the petitioners are liable to be tried fall in the prohibitory clause of section 498, Cr.P.C. He has also referred to the eye-witness account of Muhammad Ashiq and Iftikhar who fully endorsed the narration of F.I.R.
5. Learned A.P.-G. Also opposes bail application of the petitioners and submits that both the eye- witnesses fully involve the present petitioners with the commission of said offence. He however, submits that the alleged abductee has not so far been recovered from the petitioners.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.P.-G. And have also perused the record. Admittedly, there is four months delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Which I am afraid has not been plausibly explained. I have observed that delay of four months in lodging of the F.I.R which has not been explained makes the case doubtful for the reason that it is practically not possible for a father of a girl to keep mum especially when his daughter has been abducted by certain individuals and he would not instantly get the case registered against them and it is also not possible that it took four months time for him to find out the names of the abductors because when the daughter is abducted, father or any of the members of the family become restless and instantly tried to find out her whereabouts but in the instant case it appears that it has not been done so, rather F.I.R. Was got registered after the delay of four months. It is also not possible that in these four months they did not know as to who had abducted their daughter, therefore, this considerable delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Casts serious doubt in one's mind regarding happening of the occurrence as well as role of the petitioners.
7. Furthermore, Investigating Officer, present in the Court, has categorically stated that the abductee was not recovered from the present petitioners. As far as aspect of mala fides on the part of the complainant is concerned, it is also established that there exists previous enmity between one of the petitioners Ashfaq and the complainant, therefore, false implication of the petitioners in this case cannot be ruled out. Investigating Officer has also stated that he has not been able to finalize his investigation as the abductee is not recovered as yet and until and unless she is recovered he may not be able to give his final findings regarding the allegations levelled against the petitioners.
8. There is another material point which is to be seriously considered regarding apprehension expressed by the complainant in the F.I.R that there is a possibility that the main accused of, the occurrence namely Asghar would have taken daughter of the complainant along with him abroad.
If that be so then of course petitioners have absolutely no role in the abduction and the entire story narrated in the F.I.R. Is doubtful.
9. Under the circumstances, petitioners' case is that of further inquiry into their guilt. I, therefore, confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them by this Court on 20-2-2009 subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. However, observations made by this Court shall not prejudice the case of either party in the trial Court.
' Petition stands disposed of.