' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Petitioner Zahid Abbas through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,206, originally registered under section 496-A, P.P.C. With Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal on 6-8-2009. Later on, the police have added section 376-B in the same and thereafter both these offences were deleted and substituted section 496-B, P.P.C. For the same. The challan against him was submitted under the same.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 22nd July, 2009, at about 8-00 p.m. He along with others after having themselves armed, trespassed into the house of the complainant and abducted his daughter Shaheen Akram for Zina.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the allegation against him as indicated above is that he along with others had abducted the said lady.
The record indicates that all his co-accused have been declared to be innocent in the case and placed in Column No,2 of the report under section 173, Cr. P. C .
4. The said report also indicates that the police after investigation have deleted the offence under sections 496-A and 376, P.P.C. In the case and substituted the same for section 496-B, P.P.C. His trial as yet has not commenced.
5. It is interesting to note that the offence under section 496-B, P.P.C. Is bailable as per the Second Schedule to the Cr.P.C. It is not only to be so but also not covered under prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. Besides than this, it is also reflective from the copies of the record annexed to the petition that she before the alleged incident has brought a harassment petition against his husband Riaz Hussain and father Mulazim Hussain and brothors. On that application, on 9-6-2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the powers of Justice of Peace, Khanewal had directed the S.H.O.
Police Station Kulma Khanewal to restrain himself from harassing her. She, thereafter, had brought a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband Riaz Hussain but it was dismissed on 17-6- 2009 for non-prosecution. She then again on 26-5-2009, has brought an application against her said husband and brothers that she felt threatened at their hands and so, in order to protect her life, she may be lodged in Darul Aman. The learned Magistrate, 1st Class, the same very day, i.e. 26- 5-2009, directed her lodging in Darul Aman. She then again, made an application on 3-6-2009, for setting her liberty from Darul Aman. Her statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate the same day and he ordered her release therefrom. All this is heavily reflective of conduct in general.
7. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 22-7-2009. The above background of said indicated conduct clearly suggests that she had not smooth relation with her husband and even father and brothers and had left their house of her own accord prior to the same.
8. Another aspect of the matter that all other accused in the case have been found to be innocent.
This ex facie shows that the story as contained in the F.I.R. Is not whole truth. So, this is to be thrashed at the trial cautiously. I would not comment any further on this aspect of the matter as it may not be prejudiced to the case of either of side at trial. However, suffice it would be said here that in view of the background of her above indicated previous conduct, particularly, when she by the police at one stage was found to be contenting party to the affair as is evident from the police record and the deletion of offence under section 376, P.P.C. In the case and the offence now left behind i.e. 496-B, P.P.C., his case certainly calls for further inquiry into his guilt. It, thus, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. He is behind the bars. Although it has been shown by the prosecution side that he is also involved in two other cases of the type but certainly not a previous convict in any of such cases.
Mere pendency or his involvement in other cases of the type cannot be a clog on is release on bail.
10. In these circumstances of the case, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
11. However, I may observe here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of'the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.