1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---F.I.R. No, 228 of 2009 was recorded at PS B-Section, Sukkur on 21-12- 2009 for an incident alleged to have taken place on 6-12-2009. Complainant stated that sister of one Abdul Khaliq felt slighted at a marriage ceremony, which annoyed Abdul Khaliq. On 6-12-2009 at 4-00 a.m. When the complainant and his family were sleeping in their house, outer door was knocked at. Complainant opened the door and saw four persons, including present applicants Nos.l and 2, all variously armed. They controlled inmates and abducted Mst. Zakia (described as wife of Ali Muhammad) and Mst. Raheela, both sisters of the complainant. They are also alleged to have robbed cash and other valuables and taken away the sisters with them. Complainant and his two male members followed and outside home, they found that there were two cars, in which the abductees were forced to sit and the cars sped away. It is further stated in the F.I.R. That the complainant went to the applicant No, 3, who assured him that in 5 to 7 days, the abductees and the stolen property would be returned. When this did not happen, he went to the Police Station and recorded the F.I.R.
2. ' Learned counsel referred to an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No, 1391 of 2009 on 6-1-2010. Abdul Khaliq was the petitioner. The alleged abductee Mst. Raheela's statement was recorded by SIO, New Pind in the Court premises. She stated in her statement that she had not been abducted and that she had left house of her father of her own free-will and had married petitioner Abdul Khalique. She also stated that her sister had not been abducted and that her sister was in custody of her father. Learned counsel submitted that therefore, the entire story is false and concocted.
3. ' Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that statement of Mst. Zakia under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded, in which she has supported the incident. He submitted that in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., Mst. Zakia has alleged that applicant No,1 repeatedly raped her and the medical evidence supports such version.
4. ' When learned counsel for the applicants contended that Mst. Zakia was already married, learned counsel for complainant submitted that only Nikah of Mst. Zakia had taken place and no Rukhsati had taken place. Learned counsel for complainant relied upon Faqir Muhammad and 2 others v.
5. The State, 2010 YLR 457, Muhammad Faisal and another v. The State and another, 2010 PCr.LJ 1455 and Shah Feroze Rind v. The State, 2009 PCr.LJ 409.
6. ' Learned DPG submitted that Mst. Zakia was a married lady and he, therefore, did not oppose this bail application.
7. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
8. ' In Faqir Mohammad's case (supra) allegation against the applicant was that he along with other co-accused had entered house of complainant and had not only robbed golden ornaments etc. But also abducted wife of one Ghulam Ali. Six days after the incident, Mst. Gul Bano narrated incident and alleged Zina. Delay in lodging of F.I.R. Was considered inconsequential and the Court observed that not only the allegations of the complainant were supported with the statements but also by other prosecution witnesses. In Muhammad Faisal's case (supra) it was alleged that the abductee was abducted from house of her father. The abductee was a girl of tender age and medical evidence supported that she had been subjected to intercourse. A Nikahnama was produced but the Bench observed that genuineness or otherwise of the Nikahnama could only be decided at the trial. In Shah Feroze Rind's case (supra) it was alleged in the F.I.R. That the applicant, a neighbour of the complainant, abducted daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, the daughter was recovered, she stated that she was made to sign some papers and then she was left outside her father's house. It was claimed by the applicant that the alleged abductee was his wife. Such marriage was denied by the alleged abductee. Bail application was dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court.
9. The above cases are clearly distinguishable because in the present case, it is alleged.That two ladies were abducted and one of those alleged abductees appeared before this Court and clearly stated that no such incident had taken place and she had married Abdul Khalique of her own free- will. Mr. Junejo, after reading medical record, merely contended that only Nikah of Mst. Zakia had taken place and Rukhsati had not taken place. This contention of the learned counsel is belied by two facts. Firstly, in the F.I.R., Mst. Zakia is described as wife of Ali Muhammad and secondly, in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., Mst. Zakia had stated that she wanted to go with her husband.
10. Obviously, a girl, whose Rukhsati has not taken place, would not like to go with husband with whom only her Nikah had taken place and no rukhsati had taken place. As far as the applicant No, 3 is concerned, only allegation against him is a simple statement of the complainant that he approached him and thereafter, it is stated, the applicant No,3 promised him that the girls would be returned. He is not alleged to be present at the time of incident or present where Mst. Zakia is alleged that she was kept and raped. Consequently, a case for bail is made out.
11. ' Result of the above discussion is that this bail application is allowed and the bail already granted, to the applicants vide order dated 11-5-2011 is confirmed on the same terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.