' Through this petition, Mst. Anwar Bashir petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R No, 33, dated 4.2.2016, registered under Sections 365-B/376, PPC at Police Station City Kabirwala, District Khanewal.
2.Precisely, the allegation against petitioner as embodied. in the F.I.R. is that she and her co- accused abducted Mst. Saima Bibi complainant abductee. Muhammad Imran co-accused committed zina bil jabr with the abductee.
3.Learned counsel for petitioner has advanced his arguments on lines and grounds as described in the bail petition and prayed for confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner.
4.Conversely, learned A.P.G assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail petition and contends that petitioner is nominated in F.I.R with specific role; that sufficient incriminating material in shape of statements of PWs and her telephonic calls is available on record against the petitioner; that the pre-requisites for grant of an extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail i,e, mala fide, ulterior motive, false implication coupled with unjustified harassment are missing in the present case and last prayed for its dismissal; 5.Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The alleged occurrence took place on 23.12.2015 while the matter was reported to the police on 4.2.2016, after 21/2 months. As per contents of the FIR, petitioner called the complainant from her house on the pretext that her daughter was not well and as such, she urged the complainant to accompany her to hospital and on the way, co-accused Imran, Zaman and Attique abducted the complainant in a car on pistol point. It is alleged that Mat. Imrana accused forced her to marry with Imran co-accused and got her thumb impression/signatures on different papers. As per petitioner's version she was tenant of complainant and parents of complainant wanted her to be witness of the case. On her refusal, she has been 'falsely and mala fidely roped in this case. Record shows that Mst. Saima Bibi complainant/abductee contracted Nikah with Imran co-accused and in token of affirmation of marriage sworn affidavit. She also filed an application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Mian Channu against the harassment caused by police on the behest of her parents. The question of authenticity of Nikah of the complainant with Muhammad Imran co-accused and Samar Abbas as alleged in the FIR are still under process before the concerned quarter. Evidentiary status and veracity of alleged Nikah Names would be ascertained by the learned trial Court after it evaluation of prosecution evidence. The arguments of learned A.P.G. with regard to the contact of the petitioner with co-accused Imran and complainant on her phone cell has no substance as the Investigating Officer did not collect the data of cell phone of petitioner or her husband or proof of ownership of cell phone. Co-accused Mst. Imrana, Zaman and Attique have been found innocent during investigation. Though ipse dixit of police is not binding upon the Court but same can be taken into consideration at bail stage in peculiar circumstances of the case particularly when other party has not challenged before the higher forum. Petitioner has joined the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from her. Petitioner is woman, having not been assigned any overt act except allegation of facilitation as stated above.
The Court while deciding the petition can examine the accusation, the report of t. Investigation agency and even can touch prima facie the merits of the case. Wisdom in this regard has gained from the case titled "Zaigham Ashraf versus The State and others" (2016 SCM R 18), wherein their lordship have been pleased to held that: "while granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused person, the Court was not required to see and consider the material/evidence collected in favour of the prosecution but also had to give proper attention to the defence plea taken by an accused person."- All the above referred facts rendered the case of petitioner as further inquiry and element of ulterior motive, malice on the party of complainant cannot be ruled out, therefore, this application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner vide order dated 27.07.2016 is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. Before parting with this order, it is, however, made clear that the findings made hereinabove are tentative in nature and meant only for disposal of petition in hand and no effect on merits of the case.