MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J:- Petitioner Farman Ali seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.432 dated 16.07.2012 registered u/s 365-B PPC, Police Station Urmar, Peshawar.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as emerged out of FIR is that initially the complainant lodged report about missing of his wife Mst: Shagufta, who left the house for visiting a Doctor but lateron she did not turned, thus his report was entered vide Mad No.21 dated 03.07.2012 and during inquiry u/s 156(3) Cr.PC complainant recorded his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, charging therein the petitioner for commission of offence. Consequently instant FIR was registered against the accused.
3. Lateron after recovery, the abductee also recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, charging thterein the petitioner for kidnapping and illegally confining her.
Arguments heard, record perused.
4. The petitioner is not directly charged by the complainant in his report for commission of offence rather he was charged lateron by the complainant in his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. The mode of occurrence, as narrated by husband of the abductee and lateron, by the abductee herself in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C is indicative of the fact that she herself left the house at her own accord. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has abducted Mst.Shagufta or compelled her for marriage, etc without her consent. The abductete has not mentioned in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC about compelling her for marriage or illicit intercourse etc, by the petitioner rather she charged him only for illegal confinement, which offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The abductee has also not been medically examined as to whether any zina/ illicit intercourse has been committed with her or not, which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry. Section 365-B PPC signifies the carrying away of a woman by any means with an aim that she may be compelled to marriage or forced or made to illicit intercourse, against her will. The plain reading of the section indicates two main components and ingredients of the offence, firstly, there must be kidnapping or abduction of a woman, and secondly, the first act of abduction and kidnapping, must be with intent that she may be compelled to marriage or be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. In the instant case all the above said elements are missing.
5. So far as long absconcion of petitioner is concerned, as per settled principles, abscondance by itself is no ground for refusal of bail, when otherwise the case for bail is made out on merits. Though the offence is heinous in nature but mere fact that the petitioner is charged for a heinous offence would not hamper in the way of bail, if otherwise, he has made out a case of bail on merits. The petitioner despite remaining in police custody, has made no confession before the competent Court nor the abductee has been recovered by the local police from his possession, which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry.
In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction trial Court concerned, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
These are the reasons of my short order of even date.