' SIKANDAR ZULQARNAIN SALEEM, J.---Through this petition, Muhammad Madni-petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 8 dated 13-1-2014, under sections 365-B and 376, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Roheelan Wali, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, as per contents of F.I.R. Are that on 24-8-2012, Mst. Mehvish Bibi, daughter of Allah Bakhsh was kidnapped by petitioner and others in order to commit zina with her and thereafter petitioner forcibly contracted Nikah with her.
3. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
4. Bare perusal of crime report reveals that the same was registered after an unexplained delay of more than 16 months which has not been explained by the complainant. Perusal of file further depicts that Mst. Mehvish Bibi, alleged victim was recovered and produced in the Court on 10-10- 2013 subsequent to the habeas corpus petition filed by her father. In fact, the story behind the curtain is different. Hand of the victim Mehvish Bibi was given to the petitioner-Muhammad Madni by her grand father and maternal uncle with her free will and consent to the petitioner and Nikah was solemnized on 26-8-2013 and Ameer Bakhsh grandfather was witness of that Nikah who is also present in the Court today. Petitioner has filed a Suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights which is pending adjudication before the Family Court, Muzaffargarh. Copy of the Nikah Nama is also available with the police file till date, the thumb impression on the same had not been denied by the alleged victim Mst. Mehwish Bibi. On the other hand, when the got recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein she had implicated the petitioner along with others regarding the commission of zina with her taking U turn from her earlier complaint which was filed in the Court of Learned Magistrate Ist Class wherein she stated that being sui-juris availed her Constitutional right and contracted marriage with Muhammad Madni son of Hafiz Ameer Bakhsh on 26-8-2013 with her free will and consent statement and she is happily living with her husband. It seems that no such occurrence had taken place as alleged by the complainant, false case has been registered by complainant. Petitioner is behind the bars since 27-1-2014. Prima facie, all these facts when put side-by-side, make case against the petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt.
'In such an eventuality, false implication of the petitioner with exaggerate story coupled with ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and further detention of the petitioner would amount to pre-trial conviction.
5. It is well settled principle of law that bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment nor could one be left to rot in jail for an indefinite period only to satisfy a forming complainant.
6. So far as contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail is concerned, suffice it to say that when case of accused is found to be covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C., he would be entitled to claim bail as of right and could not be detained in jail. Reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Saleem v. The State (PLD 1989 Lahore 233).
7. The above facts and circumstances persuade this court to hold that sufficient grounds exist to believe that case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted as a consequence whereof the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.