' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner, namely, Abdul Rasheed son of Ghulam Muhammad seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,176 of 2008 dated 25-7-2008 registered at Police Station Seetal Mari, Muzaffargarh, under sections 365-B, 380, P.P.C. At the instance of Mst. Sonan Mai wife of Azeem Bakhsh complainant.
2. Briefly allegations against the petitioner are that he was standing out side the house when the co-accused entered into the house to kidnap the abductee and bring her to Karachi where she was gang raped by the accused. The accused also took golden ornaments etc. And amount of Rs,2,80,000. Hence, this F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is unexplained delay of 7 days in lodging the F.I.R. As such false implication cannot be ruled out; further submits that the co-accused, Mehboob and Sultan have been granted post-arrest bail and under the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail; petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his further incarceration in the jail will not serve any useful purpose; that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; challan has been submitted in the Court, that prosecution story is concocted; that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner although he remained on physical remand; that petitioner is previous non-convict and non-record holder; the abductee appeared before this Court in Writ Petition No,11788 of 2007 and vide order dated 10-12-2007 recorded her statement that she does not want to accompany her mother and the compromise is effected between Muhammad Ayaz, co-accused and the parents of the abductee through. Panchiat and the changing stances of the abductee on different occasions makes the case of further inquiry and the alleged abductee has given birth to a child out of her wedlock with Muhammad Ayaz, which makes the case one of further inquiry; challan of the case has been submitted before the learned trial Court; petitioner is no more required for further investigation; co-accused have been allowed bail and petitioner is also entitled to the same relief under the principle of consistency.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is found guilty during the investigation and involved in a heinous offence, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is a case in which alleged abductee has taken different stance at different occasion about the allegations, which makes the case of further inquiry. Further submits that the co-accused, Mehboob and Sultan, who have entered in the house and abducted the lady have been granted post-arrest bail while the present petitioner did not enter the house and remained standing outside the house. Under the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. The challan of the case has been submitted in the Court. The petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation and no useful purpose would be served while keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Prima facie alleged abductee seems to be sui juris, who contracted marriage with Muhammad Ayaz of her own free will and consent. At this stage, deeper appreciation of evidence will not be permissible, which can prejudice the case of prosecution or the defence. The allegation against the accused is of taking away the ornaments and other household articles which are not recovered from the petitioner. Allegedly, abductee gave birth to a child, out of her wedlock with co- accused Muhammad Ayaz. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage.
7. Resultantly, this petition is accepted the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, it is made clear that the observations made above are of tentative in nature which will not affect the merits of the case.