On 13th September, 1980, F. I. R. No. 373 was lodged at Police Station Kup, Multan, saying that during the night between 10th/11th September. 1980, while the parents of a girl were away to Lahore, she was not found in her house. Suspicion was expressed that Musaddaq, Naeem and Ishtiaq were responsible for the theft of the household goods and of abduction of the girl. On 21st September, 1980, the statement of the girl was recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. To the effect that during the night of Thursday, the 11th of September, 1980, she was taken away by Musaddaq and Muhammad Ashraf and she took with herself clothes, ornaments and a sum of Rs. 17,000. She stayed in a hotel with Musaddaq, Muhammad Ashraf went away. On 14th September, 1980, she went to the District Courts and got her statement recorded. Muhammad Ashraf was also there. Musaddaq took her to Sheikhupura where Muhammad Ashraf lived and he got a house separately. Her parents reached there and she wanted to go with them. Musaddaq and Ashraf were arrested on 22nd September, 1980 and since then they are in jail. They unsuccessfully applied for bail to the learned Sessions Judge, Multan. Musaddaq peti--tioner has filed Crl. Miscellaneous No. 149/B-8l and Muhammad Ashraf petitioner .Has filed Crl. Miscellaneous No. 143/B-81 for grant of bail in this Court. This order will dispose of both the abovesaid bail applica--tions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the second petition (Muhammad Ashraf) has contended that he was not mentioned in the F. I. R. Nor was he resident of the place where the occurrence commenced and there has been a delay of two days and that there is no allegation of any illegal act against him levelled in the statement under section 164,1 Cr. P. C. Of the girl.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the first petition (Musaddaq) has contended that the girl was more than 21 years of age as per her birth entry and an extract of school register (Annexure `G') and she has gone of her own free will with the petitioner to Lahore, and got herself married with him. He has committed no crime. The allegation about the household effects and cash is not relatable to the petitioner. He has also supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf that the F.I. R. Was delayed by two days.
4. Learned counsel for the State has strongly contested the applica--tion for bail moved by Musaddaq petitioner and contended that it is not correct that the girl was above the age of 21 years. She was a minor of 14/15 years of age and the certificates relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not correct, because the first mentions the caste of the father of the girl as Qureshi, whereas he is a Rajput and in the school leaving certificate, his caste is mentioned as Khokhar. He has also submitted that no nrarrrage has taken place between the girl anti the petitioner; because the Nikah Khawnn, during the course of investigations, has stated that Musaddaq petitioner had come to him asking for registration of the marriage, but as the girl was not there he had asked him to take away his register saying that he would show it to the girl but he kept the portions of the certificate himself and returned the register for which he made a quick report on 15th September, 1980. --
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties; it is quite apparent that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner in the second application is entitled to bail, for the reason that regarding his culpability it requires consideration. Therefore, he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,00((Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Multan,
6. As regards Musaddaq petitioner in the first petition, the matter has been given anxious consideration. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the by and the girl were living in the same Mohallah and the parents of the girl were away when she and Musaddaq left Multan for Lahore. Whatever her exact age may be, she has none-theless attained puberty. As to what force or fraud or misrepresentation has been used, is a matter which would require further inquiry. In they circumstances of the case, Musaddaq petitioner also would be entitled to bail. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sure of R.s. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A: C., Multan.