SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J. Shahzad Ahmad seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 58/10, dated 11.5.2010 for offence under Section 365-B, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Manthar, District Hareem Yar Khan, on the complaint of Muhammad Shabbir.
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as stated by the complainant is that Muhammad Boota, a neighbour of the complainant sought the hand of his daughter Mst. Saddaf for his son Shahzad but he (complainant) refused; Mst. Saddaf was abducted at gun point by Shahzad (petitioner) armed with pistol, Boota (father of the petitioner), Riaz (the-brother of Muhammad Boota accused) and Adnan (son of Riaz) at 6.00 a.m. On 11.5.2006; the petitioner brandished his weapon at the complainant and exhorted, if anyone drew near, would be killed; the accused confined Mst. Saddaf Bibi at their residential house after abducting her.
3. The police was informed by the complainant well in time qua the abduction of his daughter, so the Investigation Officer reached the place of occurrence alongwith the complainant and recovered Mst. Saddar from a room of the house of the petitioner, the same day.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the parties are closely related to each other and it was why Muhammad Boota had asked for the hand of Mst. Saddaf for his son Shahzad, the petitioner, the alleged abductee had also fallen in love with Shahzad petitioner so she herself left her house on 11.5.2010 and reached the house of the petitioner with the intention that she would not go back to her parents till she was married with Shahzad; the police recovered her from abode Of the petitioner where Mst. Saddaf categorically stated that she had herself come to the house of her relatives and that she wanted to marry Shahzad; she further contended that she had not been abducted by anyone and the case lodged by her father was false; the statement of the alleged abductee was recorded by the Investigation Officer, the same day under Section 161, Cr.P.G.
Wherein she had totally denied the allegations contained in the F.I.R. And had reiterated her version which she advanced before the Investigation Officer at the time of unbolting the door of the room wherein she had concealed herself; the complainant has falsely roped the petitioner his father Muhammad Boota, real paternal uncle Riaz and his son Adnan with mala fide intention to humiliate and disgrace them; all the accused except the petitioner had been found innocent during the course of investigation and the story narrated by the complainant could not be verified by the I.O.; lastly contends that the petitioner's case constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt.
5. On the other hand learned DDPP has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner with the contention that Mst. Saddaf was produced before the learned Area Magistrate on 12.5.2010 for her statement under Section 164, CrP.C. Wherein she completely owned the story contained in the F.I.R.
And categorically alleged that she was abducted at gunpoint by Shahzad and his co-accused on the day of occurrence and that she had been taken to the house of the petitioner and confineo there; the offence with which the petitioner is charged catches the prohibition of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Arid he is not entitled for the relief prayed for.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The crucial point of the instant case pertains to the recovery of the alleged abductee from the house of the petitioner by the investigation Officer who has recorded the proceedings of the recovery of the alleged abductee from a room of the said house in case Diary No. 1, dated 11.5.2010.
It has been mentioned by the Investigation Officer that the. Court took him to the said house and pointed tc a room wherein Mst. Saddar had confined herself by bolting the door from inside. The I.O.
Knocked at the door of the said room, in response to which Mst. Saddaf cried that she would not open the door til! She was married with Shahzad accused.
According to the case diary she was given the assurance by the complainant that her desires shall be respected, so she opened the door and informed the Investigation Officer of the real facts of this case. It also transpired from the record that the Investigation Officer produced the alleged abduetee before the learned Magistrate for her statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C., the same day but it could not be recorded, as the Court time was over. The I.O., however, recorded the statement of the alleged abduetee u/S. 161, Cr.P.C., the same day wherein the categorically denied the story as alleged in the F.I.R. And contended that she loved her Phoophizad Shahzad and wanted to marry him but her parents were reluctant, so she decided to do it on her own by leaving the house of her parents. She further contended that she had gone to the house of her beloved on her own and that she had not been abducted by anyone. The alleged abduetee however, took a summersault when she was produced before the learned Magistrate again on 12.5.2010 for her statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. By the Investigation Officer as she stated before the learned Magistrate that she had been abducted by Muhammad Boota and his co-accused and taken to their house where she was confined in a room of the house. She further deposed that she was confined there for 2/3 hours, and ws .Recovered therefrom by the Investigation Officer. The police found the father, paternal uncle and paternal cousin of the petitioner innocent during the course of investigation and challaned the accused-petitioner. Presently there are two statements of the' alleged abduetee on the record, which one of the two is nearer to truth and believability is a question necessarily to be dealt with by the learned Trial Court during the course of the trial. The. Proceedings conducted by the Investigation Officer at the time of recovery of the alleged abduetee cannot be thrown away for the simple reason that the alleged abduetee had taken a U-turn while deposing u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. On 12.5.2010. Even otherwise the allegations levelled by the complainant are preposterous as a father and uncle in our society hardly associate with his son/nephew to commit such an occurrence as alleged by the complainant. All the co-accused of the petitioner had been found innocent during the course of investigation and the case of the petitioner in the attending circumstances is open to further inquiry into his guilt within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 24.5.2010. The investigation is complete and he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation.
8. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,0, 000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.