' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---This bail application has arisen out of F.I.R. No,816 of 2009 registered at Police Station Ferozabad on 23-7-2009 in respect of offence under section 365-B, P.P.C.
2. Facts of the incident as stated in the F.I.R. Are that complainant Syed Haider Ali stated that Saima Bibi is his lawfully wedded wife. His family had been in some financial straits. After his wife had met some ladies, complainant stated that, he took his wife to a house in P.E.C.H.S. The lady had promised Saima Bibi that she would find a cheaper accommodation for the family. Lady told Saima Bibi that his daughter is in Showbiz and she would train Saima Bibi how to work in Showbiz so that their financial problems may be alleviated. Consequently complainant left his wife with Nizakat Begum. Subsequently when he went to collect his wife he was informed that house has been shifted and then from the new place he was informed that his wife had gone with Shamim Akhtar alias Shabana and Yasir and has not come back. Matter remained like that for about two weeks. Eventually on 23-7-2009 he lodged F.I.R. With police. Police papers reveal that story of Saima is that she was first taken to a house at Baldia and then she was taken to Khuzdar, where she was repeatedly subjected to sexual assault. Thereafter she was informed that the said Sadaqat Begum had sold her for Rs,5 lacs to the present applicant. One day she was brought to Karachi. While on the way car went broke down and the alleged abductee was able to escape. She came to Qaidabad and then called her husband.
3. Bail application was filed in the Court below, which has been dismissed vide order, dated August, 20th 2009. It may be mentioned here that challan has been filed on 12-8-2009 under sections 376(2), 496(A), 511, P.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the complainant out of enmity. He submitted that applicant's name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. And also submitted that even alleged abductee in her statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code has not involved the applicant. He submitted that offence is alleged to have occurred on 6-7-2009, whereas F.I.R. Was lodged at 23-7- 2009 and the delay has remained unexplained. While concluding, he submitted that applicant is a poor women and is facing hardship due to her false involvement in this case. Learned counsel relied upon Muhammad Yasin v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1295, Mooso v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 361, Amir Hayat v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1529, Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277, Abdul Karim alias Karoo and another v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 582 and Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81.
5. Learned A.P.-G. Opposed grant of bail and submitted that accused is alleged of a non-bailable offence and is not entitled to facility of bail.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel. I have gone through the case record, police papers and the case-law cited by the Advocate for the applicant.
7. In Muhammad Yasin's case (supra) since the challan was not submitted within 14 days, the accused was allowed bail. In present case though challan was not submitted within 14 days, the challan has since been submitted on 12-8-2009. Therefore, the case is not much of a help to the applicant. Mooso's case is not a case relating to bail. Amir Ilayat's case is also distinguishable, because in that case bail was allowed, as the challan had not yet been submitted. In Amir's case the Honourable Supreme Court held that benefit of doubt, if any, must go to the accused even for the purpose of grant of bail. This was a case of murder and it was urged that one of the eye- witnesses who lodged the F.I.R. And who was one of the accused in the cross-case had stated in his statement that Amir at Jan Muhammad after the latter had fired at Yasin killing him and therefore, it was the case of right of self-defence. It was in this context of facts that it was held that benefit of doubt, if any, must go to the accused even at the bail stage. In Abdul Karim's case accused was behind bars for 27 months and trial Court had failed to conclude trial within period of 45 days in spite of specific directions by the High Court. It was in view of such long delay that bail was granted. In Manzoor and 4 others' case the Honourable Supreme Court held that bail is not to be refused as a punishment.
8. In present case no doubt F.I.R. Was lodged after about 16 days of the incident, but reasons for the delay in lodging of F.I.R. Are perfectly plausible because husband of the abductee first tried to contact here and there to locate his wife and when he failed to do so then as a last resort, he approached police. Obliviously till time of lodging of F.I.R. The abductee had not yet been recovered and therefore, complainant could not have known as to what is the alleged role of the present applicant in that process. Learned counsel laid a lot of emphasis that the accused has not been implicated by the abductee in her statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. I am afraid this statement is not borne from the record. The abductee stated in her statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code that on 6-7-2009 Sadakat Begum called a woman Shabana Begum (alias of the present applicant) and asked abductee to go with Shabana, who would take her to Arts Council. Shabana Begum took her firstly to Baldia and then from there abductee was taken to Khuzdar. Therefore to say that the applicant has not been implicated in the statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code is not borne from the record. The accused has been alleged to be accomplice in a crime, where a female was abducted with intention to press her to business of prostitution. The offence under which the accused is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Criminal Procedure Code and is punishable with life imprisonment. Material collected by the prosecution, prima facie, connect accused with alleged offence. Therefore, no case for bail has been made out at this stage.
' Needless to observe that trial Court where challan has been presented shall proceed with the matter with due dispatch. Needless also to observe that nothing above shall be taken into consideration by the trial Court while deciding guilt or innocence of the present applicant.