' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.-The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 186/2006 dated 29-5-2006 registered under sections 10/16/79(11) at Police Station Mandi Bahauddin.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he had abducted daughter of the complainant and had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her*
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye-witness account to the alleged abduction and false case stands registered against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant. There is four days delay in lodging of the F.I.R, which has not been explained. He further submits that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever on record regarding abduction of the daughter of the complainant by the present petitioner. He further submits that medical examination conducted on the victim is absolutely insignillcant as she is married woman.
4. Leamed D.P.G, opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the abductee has stated in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C, that the petitioner is the one who had abducted her and had committee Zina-bil-Jabr with her. He further argues that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the leamed counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G, and have also pemsed the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R, with specific role but I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether case against the petitioner is made out or not. There is no direct or indirect evidence on record which could connect the present petitioner with the commission of the said offence. There is unexplained delay of four days in lodging of the F.I.R, which prima facie falsifies the allegations levelled against the petitioner and possibility of false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out.
Had it been genuine abduction then there is no reason whatsoever on the part of the complainant not to lodge the instant F.I.R, instantly. As far as medical evidence is concerned, I am afraid it is of no significance for the reason that the abductee being a married woman and it cannot be ascertained as to whether semen stained swabs collected by the prosecution are exactly the same which belong to the petitioner and since no grouping was done, therefore, it cannot be determined as to whether it is the petitioner who is one who had committed Zina-bil- Jabr with her.
6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt, I, therefore, admit him to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the leamed trial ourt/Illaqa Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.