' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 408 of 2010 under sections 365-B, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shorkot City, District Jhang. According to the contents of the F.I.R. The abducted Mst. Zarina Bibi, sister of the complainant, abducted and detained her on gunpoint and prepared a forged Nikahnama. Serious allegations were levelled in the F.I.R. Against the petitioner who was arrested on 28-4-2010. On 19-5-2010 an application for post arrest bail was moved on his behalf before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot. The same was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of six months in lodging the F.I.R. He submits that the petitioner had actually married the sister of the complainant on 7-7-2009 and the Nikahnama is still intact in view of the fact that no suit for jactitation of marriage has been filed. He further submits that a large number of persons including the Nikah Registrar and one of the witnesses of the marriage have shown affidavits that the sister of the complainant had entered into a lawful marriage with the accused. He further submits that the family of the abduc tee and approached the accused and had taken her with them on the promise that she would be returned. However, subsequently they shifted her to Chunian and filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 25-7-2009. The learned counsel submits that the fact that a suit for dissolution of marriage was filed is itself an admission of the fact that the abductee had married the accused of her own free will. He further argues that the accused had filed a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. For recovery of his wife. However, on being recovered, she had made a statement in this Court that she was living with her brother and did not wish to accompany the petitioner. He points out that she did not make any statement before this Court that she had either been abducted or forced to enter into a marriage with the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the conduct of the abductee as well as her family is suspicious and intent to blackmail the petitioner and his family is quite evident. Even otherwise, the learned counsel submits that the facts and circumstances available on record suggest that the guilt or innocence of the accused requires further inquiry which entitle him to the grant of bail.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently contested the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
5. A perusal of the F.I.R. Indicates that the accused is named in the and a specific role has been attributed to him. Further, the petitioner has been accused of A serious offences which attract penalty of imprisonment for life. Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact that the F.I.R. Was lodged with a considerable delay. It has been held by this Court that in cases involving abduction of girls in which honour and dignity of the victim and her family is involved, delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal. Parties usually take time in discussing whether or not an F.I.R. Should be lodged and, at times in order to save family honour and dignity, efforts are made through intermediaries or to recover the girl without publicizing the matter and/or involving the police. Reliance can usefully be placed on Shahid Iqbal v. State PLD 2002 Kar.
152.
6. My attention has also been drawn to the fact that one of the witnesses of the alleged Nikah, namely Ehsanullah, has denied that he attested the Nikahnama. Further Moulvi Nazeer, who allegedly solemnized the Nikah and was in possession of the original record, is absconding and has been declared a proclaimed offender. Further, in response to various habeas corpus petitions, the abductee has appeared before this Court and made categorical statements that she had not contracted marriage with the petitioner and that she was living in her brother's house of her own accord. As far as the question of filing of a suit for dissolution of marriage is concerned, a trend has lately developed that after abducting a girl and forcing her to execute a Nikahnama or forging the same, the abductors file a family suit for dissolution of marriage in order to create a concocted defence that there indeed was a Nikah. Whether or not the petitioner did the same, will be determined once the Nikah Registrar is apprehended and his record is taken into possession. The petitioner is charged with serious offences which fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further, I find that there is enough incriminating material available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Key witnesses are absconding. If the petitioner D is enlarged on bail the possibility of his influencing and intimidating witnesses cannot be ruled out.
The petitioner is charged with commission of serious offences and no case for bail is made out.
Law enforcement agencies must be given adequate time to apprehend absconding witnesses whose testimony is material for the case.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Consequently, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.