1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---F.I.R. No,181 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station Moro on 28-5-2010 for an incident alleged to have occurred on 20-5-2010. Complainant was Roshan Ali. He stated that about two years ago he arranged marriage of his daughter with Khadim Hussain in exchange of marriage of sister of Khadim Hussain with son of the complainant. That relationship turned acrimonious and the complainant and his party shifted to Karachi and started residing there. They involved each other in litigation. Elders of the community intervened and resolved the dispute and litigation was brought to an end but the accused party still carried grudge and forbid the daughter of the complainant to meet with her brothers. They also maltreated her. On such complaints the complainant and his two sons came to Moro and along with a relative went to the house of the in- laws of the daughter. The two applicants along with other relatives were present there. When asked as to why complainant's daughter was being maltreated they stated that she did not obey her in- laws and remained in contact with her father's family despite being forbidden to do so. Just at that time Khadim Hussain, husband of deceased hired a vehicle and it is stated in the F.I.R. "all of the accused party fastened "my daughter and took her away". Elders of the community undertook to resolve the dispute but the accused persons were not traceable. Consequently on 28-5-2010 F.I.R.
2. Under section 364/34 P.P.C. Was lodged. Subsequently on 9-6-2010 dead body was recovered.
3. Postmortem report stated that death had occurred two days prior to the postmortem. It was initially identified by the I.O. And subsequently the father and brother of the deceased identified the dead body.
4. ' Learned counsel submitted that F.I.R. Has been lodged with delay, which delay has remained un- explained. He relied upon Ali Gul v. The State (2003 SCM R 201). Learned counsel next submitted that as far as death is concerned it is an unseen incident and when it is an unseen incident it is always a question of further enquiry. He relied upon Ghazi Sarfaraz v. The State (2008 PCr.LJ 1520). Learned counsel submitted that the applicants are not relatives of either the deceased or her husband. He submitted that in the first place abduction has not taken place because the deceased lady was carried away by her own husband as per contents of the F.I.R. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants only look after land of the main accused persons and they have been falsely involved merely to create more problems for the husband of the deceased and his family. He submitted that the witnesses resided in Karachi and their presence is an un-natural presence. Lastly he referred to affidavits of Ali Muhammad and Zafar Ali Shah and stated that they have deposed that no such incident as the alleged abduction had taken place.
5. ' Mr. Shyam Lal learned A.P.G. Submitted that the postmortem showed that death had occurred under un-natural circumstances. He submitted that last seen evidence clearly and strongly connects the present applicants with the alleged offence. Learned A.P.G. Relied upon Sajid and 2 others v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1455), Naseer Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 347) and Abdul Haque alias Qawee v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 115).
6. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
7. ' First contention of the learned counsel was that F.I.R. Had been lodged with the delay. The facts in this regard are that alleged abduction took place on 20-5-2010 and F.I.R. Was lodged on 28-5-2010.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon Ali Gul's case (supra). Facts in that case were that a report of offence under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
9. Ordinance 1979, 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sections 324, 449, 452, 109/34, P.P.C. Was lodged to the effect that Ali Gul armed with T.T.Pistol along with 7/8 other persons duly armed with lethal weapons came in a vehicle in the of Sumo Khan Bhambhro and resorted to aerial firing.
10. Lathy and butt blows were also alleged. The F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of 24 hours. This delay was one of the ground which prevailed with the Court for granting, the bail. The present is not a case of fight between two parties or trespass. This is a case alleging abduction of a female. In Mst.
11. Shameem Akhtar v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 135) F.I.R. Was lodged after a delay of 16 days and such delay was not considered material and it was observed that delay in such like cases is normally perfectly plausible because family of the abductee first tries to contact here and there to locate the alleged abductee and when they fail to do so, then as a last resort they approach the police. In the present case it was alleged by the complainant that his daughter was forcibly taken away by her husband and his accomplices and since then he had not heard about A his daughter. In such like situations it would be natural for the father to first try to locate his daughter as far as possible and delay in such like matter as normally of no consequences.
12. ' It is an incident where murder has not been witnessed by any one and the only evidence available so far is in the nature of last seen evidence. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon Ghazi Sarfaraz's case (supra). The facts were that the complainant alleged that since 2-9-2007 his brother was missing and then four days later he came to know about recovery of the dead body.
13. He identified dead body of his brother and F.I.R. Was recorded against unknown persons. The applicant was arrested in another offence and during investigation he admitted that he and co- accused killed the deceased. The honourable Supreme Court granted bail because it observed that evidentiary value of so called statement before police is none and as far as pointation of place of incident is concerned. It is of no consequences because it was already in the knowledge of police.
14. ' On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Relied upon Sajid's case (supra). It was a case where it was alleged that deceased was murdered after he had been subjected to un-natural act. The evidence was available in the nature of last seen evidence and existence of semen stains on the clothes.
15. Nature of the injury on the body indicate that such offence had been committed. In the present case the postmortem was conducted on 9-6-2010 and it is stated that death occurrence two days earlier. Thus death occurred probably on 7-6-2010. Alleged abduction took place on 20-5-2010.
16. Therefore, there is a gap of 17/18 days between the alleged abduction and the death. The main person accused of abduction is Khadim Hussain, husband of the deceased. Therefore, it is not a case of simple abduction per se. At best it is a case of husband forcibly taking his wife away with him and the present applicants are being merely alleged to be present with the husband.
17. Thereafter for 17 days the wife remained with the husband and thereafter she was killed. No material whatsoever has been brought forth to establish that the present applicants were involved in any way in the murder of the deceased. Therefore, in that aspect the case is clearly of further enquiry.
18. ' Result of the above discussion is that this bail application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be admitted to bail upon their executing P.R. Bonds for a sum of Rs,300,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.