Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioners Muhammad Shehzad and Muhammad Sajid alias Sajidi sons of Muhammad Mumtaz alias Mangta seek their post arrest bail in case FIR No, 92-09 dated 22.02.2009 under Section 365 PPC registered at Police Station Mianchannu District Khanewal with the allegation against them that they had abducted Mst.
Shazia alias Zeba Rani, the daughter of the complainant Miraj Din on 21.2.2009.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not nominated in the FIR.
Further submits that in fact. Muhammad Sajid Petitioner No, 2 married Mst. Zeba Rani on 22.2.2009 vide Nikah Nama of even date appended with this petition as Annexure "C". Adds that even an affidavit which is also attached with the petition was sworn by the said Zaiba Rani, regarding her marriage with Sajid Petitioner No,
2. Further submits that even Mst. Zeba Rani was produced before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 9.4.2009 but she refused to record her statement and thereafter the said application was dismissed for non- prosecution on 1a4.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mianchannun. Learned counsel further contends that both the petitioners being real brothers have been involved in the case with mala fide intention. Prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this petition on the ground that specific allegations have been leveled against the accused/petitioners by Mst. Zeba Rani in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 26.9.2009. He submits that the challan has already been submitted in the Court. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
5. Admittedly, in this case, both the accused/petitioners are real brothers. Nikah Nama of Petitioner No, 2 namely Sajid with Mst. Zeba Rani, the alleged abductee is annexed with this petition as Annexure C. Even the affidavit of the alleged abductee dated 22.2.2009 also supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the factum of Nikah with Petitioner No,
2. Another factor which creates doubt in the prosecution story is that initially the petitioners were not nominated in the FIR. In fact, the FIR was lodged against five person namely Muhammad Ashraf, Mst. Nadeem Jan and Mst. Parveen as well as two unknown persons in which specific allegations have been leveled against the above mentioned accused persons, but, subsequently the complainant took a Somersault and totally introduced a new story involving the petitioners as accused persons in this case.
6. The aforesaid accused who were initially involved in the case have been declared innocent by the police during the investigation. It is manifest from the record that Mst. Zeba Rani appeared before the learned Magistrate for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 9.4.2009 but despite that she did not record her statement which shows that apparently on that day she was pressurised to make a statement against the petitioners, but, she resisted the same and on the next date of hearing due to her absence from the Court the learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution on 18.4.2009, which is conspicuous from the record. It is further depicted from the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of Mst. Zeba Rani that she only leveled the allegation of her abduction and not of Zina.
7. Keeping all the facts and circumstances in view, it appears that firstly, Zeba Rani had, married with Petitioner No, 2 with her free will and consent and subsequently, when she was apprehended by her parents they pressurized her to involve the petitioners/two brothers in the alleged crime.
8. I have also been informed that civil suits are also pending between the parties. The petitioner Sajid has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas, Mst. Zeba Rani has filed a suit for jactitation of marriage. Therefore, this factor coupled with the other circumstances mentioned above, bring the case of the petitioners one of further inquiry within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
9. Resultantly, I accept this petition and admit the petitioners/accused to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.
10.Before parting with the order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are of tentative nature and the learned trial Judge would decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made in this order and strictly in accordance with law.