' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Muhammad Riaz, petitioner/complainant, has filed this application for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents No.2 and 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan on 11-10-2011 in case F.I.R. No.247 dated 14-9-2011 under sections 365- B/376, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Paroa, District D.I. Khan.
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that Muhammad Riaz, complainant on 7-6-2011 at 0915 hours reported the matter to the local police to the effect that on the previous night he was asleep at his house when his sister Mst. Kaneez Bibi wife of Allah Dad, whose house was in front of his house came to him at 11-00 p.m. And after awaking him, told him that his niece Mst. Fayyaz Bibi aged about 17/18 years, whose nikah had been solemnized with Gul Bahar son of Abdul Ghaffar but rukhsati had not taken place as yet, as Gul Bahar had refused to marry her, was not present in the house. He searched for the abductee in the houses of their relatives but could not get any clue, hence the ibid F.I.R. Was chalked out.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant argued that despite the fact that there was sufficient evidence available on the record to connect the accused/respondents with the commission of offence, still the learned lower court overlooked the same and admitted them to bail; that the accused/respondents were charged by name by the victim lady in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. But even the same was not considered by the learned lower court; that the section of law for which the accused/respondents have been charged are of heinous nature and fall within the ambit of prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. And thus bail granted to them be recalled.
4. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the accused/respondents argued that in the initial report, no one was charged by name and the mere absence of the alleged victim namely Fayyaz Bibi from her house was shown and it was after her dramatic appearance after a long time when the accused/respondents were roped in with patent mala fide and ulterior motives and the same have been rightly looked into by the learned lower court while enlarging them on bail.
5. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, in the initial report lodged by the uncle of the abductee namely Fayyaz Bibi, no one was charged by name nor for that matter during a period of more than two months, an accusing finger was pointed out by the complainant party at the accused/respondents. It was after recording the statement by Fayyaz Bibi under section A 164, Cr.P.C, when she charged the accused/respondents for her abduction as well as for keeping her in illegal confinement and committing zina bil jabr with her and also levelled a host of other allegations against them which too can at be described as interesting, to say the least. Her leaving the house unaccompanied by any male or female member of the family during the dark hours of the night to attend to the call of nature and the simultaneous presence of the accused/respondents at that very hour waiting for her, then abducting her, keeping her at a secluded place for over two months, committing zina bil jabr with her and then leaving her at the house of her sister on the condition that she would not disclose their names and instead to involve one Rahmatullah, her pregnancy at the hands of accused/respondents and subsequent abortion are all too, preposterous and are thus questions to be resolved during the course of trial but certainly do not warrant as to recall the bail granting order of the learned lower court.
7. For the reasons stated above, the bail granting order of the learned lower court does not call for any interference and thus the bail cancellation petition being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
8. The observations made in this order are purely tentative in nature and should, in no way, prejudice the proceedings during the trial of the case.