' HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.---Through this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks cancellation of post arrest bail granted to Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Nawaz, respondents Nos.2 to 4 and pre arrest bail granted to Muhammad Asif respondent No,1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang vide order dated 8-1-2010 and 15-3-2010 respectively in case F.I.R. No,151 dated 22-12-2009 registered under sections 452, 365, P.P.C. At Police Station Tamman District Chakwal.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant is living separately for the last 22 years from her husband-respondent No,1. Her daughter Mst. Aneela Asif is also living with her. On 14-12-2009 she contracted marriage with her free consent with Ahmad Nawaz. On 15-12-2009 at about 4-30 p.m. The respondents Nos.2 to 4 entered into the house of the petitioner. The respondent No,1 raised Lakara that they would teach lesson to the petitioner for obtaining decree and also contracting marriage of Mst. Aneela Fatima. They started dragging her daughter. When the petitioner came forward to rescue her daughter, Muhammad Asif respondent No,1 gave her kicks and fists blows and forcibly took away her daughter in a car.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged abductee namely Aneela Asif was residing with her mother since the date of her birth; that the respondent No,1 being real father of the alleged abductee never paid any maintenance allowance; that her Nikah was performed with one Ahmad Nawaz on 14-12-2009 with her free-will; that after one day of the Nikah i.e, on 15-12- 2009, the respondents entered into the house of the petitioner and forcibly abducted Mst. Aneela Asif; that a suit for dissolution of marriage as well as private complaint under section 506, P.P.C.
Were filed on behalf of Aneela Fatima but the same were dismissed for non-prosecution on 1-3- 2010. Learned counsel further contended that both the above-mentioned cases were filed only to get extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail filed by the respondent No,1 from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Talagang and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while relying upon the cases filed by the alleged abductee, confirmed pre-arrest bail of the respondent No,
1. Learned counsel also contended that the alleged abductee was neither produced before the Investigating Officer nor before any Court of law and there is strong apprehension of her murder. Learned counsel further contended that the respondents have shown reckless disregard for the order of the Court whereby they were directed to produce the alleged abduc tee before the Court. He lastly prayed that in presence of special circumstances, recall the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang, dated 8-1-2010 and 15-3-2010 respectively.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the instant petition is misconceived.
The petitioner has assailed two separate orders through the instant petition, one under section 497, Cr.P.C. And second under section 498, Cr.P.C. Passed in different jurisdiction and on different dates.
Learned counsel also contended that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. According to learned counsel considerations for the cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail and that very strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancellation of bail which are lacking in the instant case and that there is no allegation of misusing of concession of bail. Learned counsel lastly submitted that as the challan has been submitted in the Court, therefore, at this stage bail should not be cancelled. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon 1992 SCM R 1286, 2009 SCM R 1202 and 1980 SCM R 203.
5. I have given due considerations to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record with their valuable assistance.
6. As far as the objection of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has challenged two separate orders, one on 8-1-2010 passed in petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. And the second on 15-3-2010 passed in petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Through one petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Is concerned, learned counsel has failed to assist the Court on this law point.
However, it is observed that there is no bar in challenging the two impugned orders passed on different dates, which are outcome of the one and the same F.I.R.
7. The petitioner's case is that on 15-12-2009 the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 entered into her house, gave kicks and fists blows to her and forcibly took away her daughter namely Aneela Asif who was married with one Ahmad Nawaz with her free will a day before the occurrence. Admittedly, respondent No,1 is father of the alleged abductee and being legal guardian he can retain custody of his daughter but in the instant case there are special circumstances which cannot be ignored by this Court. The alleged abductee remained throughout in the custody of her mother-petitioner.
The conduct of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 by entering in the residential house of the petitioner, forcibly abducting Aneela Asif, her removal from the jurisdiction of District Chakwal to District Mianwali, filing of suit for dissolution of marriage as well as private complaint, after getting extraordinary relief from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang and thereafter dismissal of the cases due to non-prosecution is highly objectionable. Furthermore a direction was issued to the respondents Nos.1 to 4 for production of Aneela Asif-alleged abductee for 19-4-2010.
On 19-4-2010 instead of producing the alleged abductee, Malik Shaher Yar Khan Advocate had submitted power of attorney on her behalf and undertaken for production of Aneela Asif on the next date of hearing. On 20-4-2010 instead of producing the alleged abductee, respondent No,1 himself disappeared from the Court. On the said date Khalid Mehmood S.-I. B who was present in Court was directed to ensure the attendance of respondent No,1 as well as the production of Aneela Asif for 22-4-2010. Even today neither the respondent No,1 put his appearance nor he produced the alleged abductee before this Court. In spite of repeated directions to the respondents, Khalid Mehmood S.-I. And even the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the alleged abductee for her production they did not bother to comply with the directions of this Court and frustrated the orders of High Court. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No,2 is real brother of respondent No,1, respondents 3 and 4 are also relatives of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and are nominated in the F.I.R. I may add that the respondents by their false assurance deliberately avoiding to produce the alleged abductee in C the Court. The conduct of the respondents amounts to frustrate the orders of this Court which disentitle them for the concession of bail. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The bail granted to the respondents Nos.1 to 4 vide order dated 8-1-2010 and 15-3-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang is hereby recalled.
8. The Investigating Officer has failed to comply the order of this Court. On 14-4-2010 the Investigating Officer was directed to ensure the production of alleged abductee but he frustrated the order of this Court. The D.P.O. Chakwal is directed to hold an inquiry against the above said Investigating Officer and take strict action against him within 15 days after the receipt of this order.
The action taken by him shall be intimated to this Court positively. There is apprehension of the petitioner that the alleged abductee might be murdered: The D.P.O. Is also directed to depute a well repute officer and to recover the alleged abductee positively.