' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Mukhtar Ahmad seeks post-arrest bail after having been involved in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 217, dated 19-5-2010 under section 365-B, P.P.C. At Police Station Pacca Laran, District Rahim Yar Khan, on the complaint of Shakeel Ahmad, about an occurrence which took place on 12-4-2010. Later on offence under section 376, P.P.C. Was added to the F.I.R.
2. Shakeel Ahmad has alleged in his F.I.R. That on the day of occurrence early in the morning, he along with his family members went for harvesting the wheat crop and his sister Zohran Bibi alias Pathani, aged 13/14 years was present alone in the house and when he came back at about 10-00 am., she was found missing. Thereafter, he along with others started searching for her and he was told by the P. Ws. That Zohran Bibi abductee was seen with Shahzad alias Dali, Dilshad, Muhammad Rafique and Aslam, who have abducted her for illicit purpose.
3. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 19-5-2010. Thereafter, his post arrest bail application was refused by learned lower Court vide its order dated 15- I 1-2010 .
4. In support of this application, it has been argued that there is delay of more than one month in lodging the F.1.R.; petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that petitioner solemnized marriage with the alleged abductee and her age has been shown as 18 years in the Nikahnama registered on 13- 4-2010. It has further been argued that Zohran Bibi instituted a Writ Petition No,2832-Q of 2010 in this court, sought for quashing of F.I.R., wherein she swore an affidavit in this regard that she was not abducted by anybody nor she was subjected to rape. It has further been submitted that the alleged abductee has also filed an application under section 22-A of Cr.P.C. Against complainant and other family members including the police that she may not be harassed and her matrimonial life may not be disturbed. Lastly, learned for the petitioner has argued that Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner has instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against abductee and all the circumstances accumulatively make the case of the petitioner to that of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And petitioner deserves bail.
5. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail petition on the grounds that statement of the alleged abductee has been recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., in which she has specifically levelled allegation of zina against the petitioner and has refuted the factum of Nikah allegedly having been solemnized with the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
6. I have evaluated the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available before the court.
7. On one side, according to the petitioner, he is not named in the F.I.R. Zohran Bibi, the alleged abductee has solemnized marriage with him and she has sought protection of law to live with the petitioner as wife and the petitioner has also claimed by filing a suit for restitution of conjugal rights that the alleged abductee be allowed to live with him as wife. On the other hand, there is only statements of the alleged abductee recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., wherein she has involved the petitioner. The same has not been supported by the medico-legal-report of the alleged victim.
8. In these circumstances, prima facie case of the petitioner appears to be that of further inquiry as required under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Hence, instant bail petition is allowed and petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.