1. ' ABDUL RASHEED KALWAR, . Dismissed as infructuous.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No,J52 of 2008 under sections 365-B, 508, 506(2), 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station "B" Section Nawabshah. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that complainant Mst. Nayab lodged the above F.I.R. On 10-10-2008 at 1900 hours in respect of an incident having taken place on 26-9-2008 at 0815 hours. The complainant has stated that she is resident of Mohalla Saeedabad Nawabshah and she states that she belongs to Syed community. As per her, applicant is their neighbourer and has family terms with the complainant's family. The applicant had evil designs on her which fact was informed by the complainant to her relatives. It is also stated that applicant had been issuing threats of kidnapping the complainant lady besides committing the murder of her family members. On the date of incident at 0815 hours she was abducted from out of her house by the applicant and three other unknown persons in a white car when she was going for taking tuition in Madrasa. The lady was forced to sit in the vehicle on the show of pistols and taken to unknown place where she was kept in illegal detention. During detention she was forced to put her signatures on stamp papers.
2. Thereafter she was left outside her house and the threats were issued to he for not disclosing the facts to her brothers and sisters. Due to fear the complainant could not disclose the incident for 2/3 days but thereafter she narrated the facts to her mother, maternal-uncle and cousin. Then she moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Nawabshah for lodgment of the F.I.R. The application was transferred to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah wherefrom order was issued for lodging of the F.I.R. On 8-10-2008 whereupon such F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. ' The applicant had approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Nawabshah vide his pre-arrest Bail Application No,649 of 2008 but the same was not granted by the said Court vide order, dated 22- 10-2008 therefore, this bail application has been filed before this Court.
4. The learned Advocate for applicant has stated that lady is wedded wife of the applicant. He has drawn my attention towards the affidavit of free will, having been executed by the complainant before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Shandadpur on 25-9-2008. The copy of Nikahnama of the marriage between applicant and the complainant had also been placed on record which shows that marriage had taken place on 26-9-2008 before the Nikah Registrar U.C. No,2, Nawabshah. He, further states that, lady acting under the influence of her family members, has lodged a false F.I.R. Against the applicant with sole intention to cause insult and maltreatment to the applicant under the garb of criminal case. Applicant has committed no offence at all. There is a delay of about 14 days in lodging of the F.I.R. He further states that F.I.R. Was lodged in a reaction to the application of the applicant under section 491, Cr.P.C. Filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nawabshah for recovery of the complainant from the custody of her relatives. The applicant had handed over the complainant to her relatives on their assurance that she would be honourably sent with the applicant through a proper Rukhsati. The F.I.R. Has been lodged with mala fides and matter requires further inquiry. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the cases reported as Ch. Basharat Karim v. Muhammad Ishfaq Chandoor and another 2007 SCM R 1546, Alam Chand alias Aloomal and 2 others v. Jamil Ahmed and another 2008 SCM R 980 and Ibrahim v. The State 2008 M LD 485 respectively.
5. ' The learned State Counsel has stated that offence under section 385-B has not been made out at the most the allegation contained in F.I.R. Would constitute an offence under section 496-C, P.P.C.
6. Which is punishable with 7 years. He also looking on the material contradictions and marital status between the applicant and complainant concedes for grant of bail.
7. ' Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, State Counsel and perused the material available on record.
8. The complainant herself is a victim and has specifically denied her free will and sweet will in execution of the documents. On the contrary she has specifically stated that her signatures were forcibly obtained by the applicant. No doubt the allegation of Zina has not been levelled by the complainant lady in the F.I.R. Section 365-B reads as follows:--- "365. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, etc.--- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code, or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid."
9. From the contents of F.I.R. First part of the section 385-B to the extent of compelling her for marriage is made out. I do not agree with the contention of learned State Counsel that section 365-B is not made out. In these matters when the respect of the families is involved then delay in approaching the police station is a common trend in our society. Under extreme circumstances, the complainant would have resorted to go to the police station for lodging of the F.I.R. The nature of offence involves the chastity and honour of the woman. By act of the applicant she has sustained a damage to her espect which may not be repaired for whole of her life. The offence committed by the applicant would certainly be reason for creating alarming situation in the society. Deeper appreciation of the facts and circumstances as stated by learned Advocate for the applicant is not possible at the bail stage. The case-laws cited by learned Advocate for applicant are distinguishable as the case-law cited in the case of Ch. Basharat Karim (supra), is in respect of cancellation of the pre-arrest bail. It is settled principle of law that there are different considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of the bail, therefore, with the profound respect I say that this authority of the apex Court is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case. The case-law cited as Alam Chand alias Aloomal and 2 others (supra), is about the principles of law that the bail may be granted when the case is based on enmity, mala fide and is registered for ulterior motives. In the present case no previous enmity or motive for false implication has been established against the complainant. On the contrary the complainant's version is supported by documents produced by the applicant. Under these circumstances, applicant cannot be benefited from the dictum laid down by Supreme Court in the aforementioned case-law. The facts and circumstances mentioned in the case-law cited as Ibrahim (supra) are altogether different from the present case because in that case complainant is not victim, the parties were before the Family Court and this case-law does not pertain to section 365-B. In my humble view this case-law is also not applicable in the circumstances of the present case. Section 365-B is punishable with imprisonment for life and fine as such same falls within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. For bail. The applicant is involved in offence beyond reasonable doubt. E Applicant is not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail.
10. ' For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merit in the application therefore, pre-arrest bail application is dismissed. However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not in any manner affect the merits of the case.