' YAR MUHAMMAD, J.---Through this single order, I propose to dispose of Cr. Misc. Application No, 150/2014 and Cr. Misc. No,175/2014 as both the petitions have arisen from same criminal case having same background and facts.
2. The background of these petitions as disclosed in FIR No,27/2014 registered on 10-8-2014 with Police Station Yasin at the instance of complainant Akbar Hussain son of Hazrat Saeed are that on the given date at about 9:00 a.m. The complainant while appearing before SHO of the Police Station referred an application saying that during intervening night of 8-8-2014 and 9-8-2014 his niece Samia aged about 14 to 15 years was present in the house along with other ladies whereas he had proceeded to Gupis to attend the Court in connection with a case that in the meantime he was informed that Mst. Samia daughter of Fida Hussain was sleeping in the house alongwith other ladies that at about 4:00 a.m. She escaped from the house and has disappeared. On this information, the complainant went back to Yasin and searched Samia but in vain. It has been stated in the FIR that engagement of Mst. Samia was effected with one Jafar some six months ago.
On the basis of above information the instant case was registered against unknown persons.
3. The petitioner and his two brothers namely Manzoor Hussain and Basharat Hussain who are accused in this case firstly preferred application for bail to learned Judicial Magistrate Gupis but in vain. The petitioner and the co-accused then knocked the door of learned Sessions Judge Ghizer for same relief and the learned Sessions Judge through his &der dated 19-9-2014 accepted the application to the extent of co-accused Basharat Hussain and Manzoor Hussain and released them on bail whereas the application for bail to the extent of petitioner Sartaj Hussain was declined hence this application for same relief.
4. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties at length and also have.Gone through the record of the case particularly the foot-note of the FIR written by the I.O. on the basis of the statement made before him by Mst. Samia and her subsequent statement made on 16-8-2014 vide which the said Samia has advanced two different versions about her escaping from the house of her parents.
According to her first statement Mst. Samia developed terms with one Shakir through telephone and on 9-8-2014 at about 2.00 a.m., the said Shakir contacted her on mobile and told that he is coming with a vehicle to take her and advised to be ready to proceed with him so that they will celebrate marriage going in a safe place. She came out from her house and found Shakir near her home who took her to the roadside where a white car was parked in which two unknown persons with short beard were sitting in the car. They also boarded her on the car and proceeded towards Phander side and took her to village Gulakhmoli where they left her helpless and disappeared.
5. According to this statement Mst. Samia was not kidnapped by anyone rather she eloped (sic) with her lover Shakir and two other persons. After discovery of Mst. Samia the police shifted her from Phander to Yasin where she on 16-8-2014, made another statement stating that she was induced by the petitioner of petition No, 175/2014 namely Sartaj and his two brothers Basharat Hussain and Manzoor A Hussain who are respondents in Cr. Misc. Application No, 150/2014 filed for cancellation of their bail extended by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghizer.
6. Initially, Mst. Samia implicated three persons out of whom she knows Shakir who took her from her house to Gulakhmoli and left her there helpless but the girl after her discovery by the local police and relatives she made a supplementary statement on 16-8-2014 exonerating the persons who were implicated by her in the case rather implicated the petitioner Sartaj and his brothers Basharat and Manzoor.
7. While making two different statements, Mst. Samia has changed the entire complex of the prosecution case making the case one of further inquiry. Which statement of Mst. Samia out of two is correct same will be determined at trial but for this stage it is a fit case for the enlargement of the petitioner Sartaj on bail, consequently there is no ground and reason to recall the bail facility extended to respondents-1 and 2 of Cr. Misc. No, 150/2014.
8. In the result, the Cr. Misc. No, 175/2014 titled Sartaj Hussain v. The State is accepted and Sartaj s/o Muhabbat Ali is released on bail subject to his furnishing Personal bond in the sum of Rs, 200,000 with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate on duty at Gahkuch. Consequently, the Cr. Misc. No, 150/2014 titled Fida Hussain v.
Basharat Hussain etc filed by the complainant for the cancellation of bail extended by Sessions Judge Ghizer to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 stand dismissed as meritless.
9. A copy of this order be placed on both the files.