' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Allah Ditta petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,281 dated 4-8-2010 at Police Station Kot Sabzal, Distt. Rahimyar Khan under sections 365/420, P.P.C. On the complaint of Mst. Khursheed Bibi. During investigation of this case, offence under section 201, P.P.C. Has also been added to the F.I.R.
2. Succinctly the prosecution version is that complainant married with Riaz Ahmad who died about 5 years earlier, for legacy of her husband, she instituted a suit in the court of DOR, Bahawalpur and for prosecution of the same, she kept on appearing before said court. Allah Ditta petitioner as being from her brotherhood used to come to her house along with his wife Mst. Bashiran Bibi and thereafter he persuaded the complainant to attend a "Peer Sahib" who is very pious person and gives amulets to overcome difficulties of all sorts. On the day of occurrence i.e, 15-7-2010, petitioner along with his wife came at the house of complainant in a Car and took her at Bahawalpur at some unknown place where son of petitioner namely Muhammad Irfan was already present.
Thereafter, the petitioner along with his co-accused asked the complainant that "Peer Sahib" is present inside home and he will give her amulets with the condition that the ornaments worn by her at present be given and after removing the same may be dipped in the water upon which complainant removed his bangles and ear rings weighing five tolas and handed over to the petitioner. On second day, petitioner along with his co-accused asked complainant to give an amount which had to be paid to "Peer Sahib", thereafter petitioner asked the complainant to accompany him to Sahiwal for making arrangement of money, upon which petitioner along with his wife and complainant and some others, by boarding a Dala proceeded to Sahiwal where complainant was kept confined at an unknown place. The complainant stayed over a night there and when she awoke up in the morning, she came to know that all the persons who were present in the said house including Allah Ditta petitioner, were found not present. She inquired from the inmates who told her that she had been sold by the petitioner and his co-accused against an amount of Rs,70,000 to them, whereupon she started weeping and kept on beseeching them to set her free. Complainant established contacts with her in-laws, then her "Devers" namely Ghulam Mustafa and Ghulam Murtaza came and ultimately took her with them. It has also been mentioned in the F:I.R. That during occurrence, petitioner and co-accused obtained thumb impressions of the complainant on some blank papers, prepared her photographs, sold her and misappropriated her ornaments.
3. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 11-8-2010 and thereafter his post arrest bail applications were declined by learned lower courts. Hence, instant bail application.
4. In support of this bail application, it has been argued that there is delay of 19 days in lodging the F.I.R. Without any exegesis. In fact, complainant of the case was got re-married at Sahiwal by the courtesy of the petitioner but she could not stay there due to family dispute and came back because of this grudge, petitioner has falsely been involved in this case. Further argued nothing has been recovered from him during investigation; petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required for further investigation and the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
5. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for petitioner has opposed the bail application on the grounds that petitioner posing himself to be a noble person but from his inner, being deceitfully abducted an innocent lady, deprived her of her valuables and then ultimately sold her. It has further been argued that complainant being widow was desired to be treated sympathetically as ordained by the Almighty Allah. Further argued that such like people who while disguising himself betrayed innocent people and played with their honour, dignity and also remove their property are liable to be treated with iron hands. Further maintained that during investigation, petitioner has been found guilty, hence, he is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. I have heard pro and contra arguments of learned counsel for both parties as well as learned D.P.-G. And have also gone through the record.
7. Complainant met hoodoo when her husband departed but petitioner by posing him as sympathizer of the complainant started visiting her house and then deceitfully abducted her, deprived her of her ornaments of gold, sold her and made her honour on stake. It is really unfortunate on part of the petitioner that he played horrid acts with an innocent poor widow and committed hooliganism. Petitioner has been found guilty in this case. I have not seen any ground for grant of bail. Thus, this petition stands dismissed.