Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No, 254 dated 3.4.2007 registered u/S. 365-B, PPC at Police Station, Lahor District Swabi.
2. According to the FIR, the complainant alongwith his wife Mst. Miraj Bibi reported to the police, in terms, that his step daughter, namely, Mst. Fazilat daughter of Subhanuddin being unmarried was missing from his house since 21.3.2007 and after conducting private inquiry he satisfied himself that his daughter has been abducted by petitioner alongwith co-accused and enticed her with the intention to commit Zina. Mst. Miraj Bibi wife of complainant endorsed the said report. Hence, the case was registered against the accused.
3.Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case; that the abductee appeared before the Magistrate on 28.3.2011 after four years and recorded her statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C., wherein, she exonerated the petitioner; that on 14.4.2011 another statement was recorded by the abductee, wherein, she charged the petitioner; that challan has not been submitted before the Court within 15 days of the occurrence as per requirement of law and that the case of the prosecution is of double version, therefore, in view of the said lacunas in the prosecution case the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on 1992 P.Cr.L.J. 1358, 2009 P.Cr.L.J. 1155 and 2009 M LD 171.
4. Learned counsel for complainant contended that the abductee, namely, Mst. Fazilat after her recovery has charged the petitioner alongwith co-accused in a statement recorded before the Magistrate u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. wherein, she narrated the entire story regarding her missing/absence from her house; that the abductee has lost her virtue in the society due to the said act committed by the petitioner and that the offence for which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, in such circumstances the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
5. The learned State counsel adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for complainant.
6. Admittedly, the occurrence pertains to the year, 2007. Initially, the petitioner was granted bail on 15.6.2007 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahor when the abductee was not recovered and there was no cogent evidence about his involvement in the crime. Thereafter, the abductee upon recovery has charged the petitioner alongwith co-accused for the commission of offence in a statement recorded u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. According to the said statement the abductee was married to one Ghazi resident of Alpuri District Shangla with the collusion of the petitioner alongwith co-accused. The question that the petitioner was exonerated in the first statement and was involved in the subsequent statement was that the abductee being illiterate who did not know about her statement recorded on her behalf by the police who had joined hands with the petitioner. The fact that challan has not been submitted before the Court was due to the malafide on the part of local police on one hand and collusion with the petitioner on the other.
Though grounds for grant and cancellation of bail are altogether different but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahor vide order dated 2.5.2011 advanced cogent and reasonable grounds therefor, which is not liable to be recalled. The offence for which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The tentative assessment of material available on record reflects that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for further inquiry.
For the aforestated reasons, this petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to submit complete challan in the Court within 15 days and the trial Court is expected to conclude the trial within five months.
Office is directed to send the record to the quarter concerned within three days.