' ATTAULLAH KHAN J .---This petition is filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to Muhammad Younus Khan respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII D. I. Khan vide order dated 19-4-2010 recorded in case F.I.R. No,167 dated 1-9-2008 under sections 496-A/506, P.P.C. Of Police Station Kulachi D.I. Khan.
2. According to the report of Moinuddin, complainant/petitioner, at the night of 30-8-2008 he along with his son, daughter Zeenat Bibi and cousin Najeebullah were asleep in the house when at about 1200 hours on hearing hue and cry he woke up and saw that his daughter Zeenat Bibi whose Nikah was already performed with Umer Farooq was forcibly taken by Mst. Yasmin, her husband Tariq and Younus son of Abdul Hai. When they (the complainant party) tried to rescue her from their clutches, Tariq aimed his Kalashnikov towards him (the complainant) and forbidden him to come near and thus Younus took away his daughter Zeenht Bibi in the Datsun for committing Zina with the active connivance of Mst. Yasmin and Tariq. Due to darkness, the complainant party could not come out of the house and on the following day, i,e, 31-8-2008 when the complainant along with his relatives searched her in village Ama Khel, there it was confirmed that Mst. Zeenat Bibi was taken by Younus with the help of above named accused. Motive for the offence was given to be dispute over women-folk.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the abductee Mst. Zeenat Bibi was already in the Nikah of Umer Farooq and in this respect also relied upon the Fithwa delivered by Qari Khalil Ahmad Siraj, Jamiah Siraj-ul-Uloom D. I. Khan. He further argued that the accused/ respondent has not mentioned his Nikah.
4. I have considered, the arguments advanced at the bar in the light of available record.
5. The record reveals that the occurrence took place on 31-8-2008 at 1200 hours night while its report was lodged the following day at 1000 hours and thus there is delay of ten hours which has not been plausibly explained by the complainant which brings the case of the respondent within the ambit of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail.
6. For cancellation of bail, strong and exceptional grounds are required to be proved by the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that the abductee was in the Nikah of one Umer Farooq but there is nothing on the record in this behalf nor any witness of the Nikah has appeared.
Moreover, for the sake of arguments, even if the alleged Nikah is proved (which is, not proved), even then there would be a question mark about its validity because on the day of occurrence, the age of the abductee was mentioned to be 12/13 years and in this way she was minor at that time and she has the right to repudiate the earlier Nikah performed during her minority as is mentioned in the impugned order that she had appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge-II D.I. Khan on 15- 3-2010 and stated that she has married the respondent/ accused of her own free will. This statement and admission by the lady/abductee would amount to exercise of right of puberty which also makes the case of the respondent of further inquiry.
7. The petitioner has failed to prove strong and exceptional circumstances required for cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent and there is no materials available on record to show that either the respondent has misused the concession of bail or has tampered with the investigation of the case.
8. Consequently, finding no substance, this application for cancellation of bail is dismissed in limine.M