The petitioner has moved this Court for the grant of bail as he stands arrested in a case registered at Police Station Sarai Sidhu for having allegedly abducted Mst. Murad Bibi alias Janni in the second week of December, 1981. He is in jail since 17th December, 1981. His two earlier similar petitions have failed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 9th February, 1982 and 3rd April, 1982.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that Mst. Murad Bibi the abductee was decoyed from the house of her father by Mst. Amiran and Msr. Sugbran relatives of Sada petitioner on 9th December, 1981 on the pretext that she would be given a sewing machine. When Murad Bibi reached the house of the aforesaid ladies she was handed over to Sada petitioner and his brother Noor Muhammad. The case was registered at the instance of Abdul Shakoor father of the abductee on 14th December, 1981. During the investigation Mst. Sughran and Noor Muhammad were found innocent and the abductee was allegedly recovered from the custody of the petitioner on 17th December, 1981. On medical examination she was found to be an old case of sexual intercourse.No mark of violence whatsoever was found on her person.Her Shalwar and viginal swabs taken by the Medical Officer were sent to the Chemical Examiner which were found to be stained with semen.
3. It is remarkable that the abductee after recovery was taken to Bhalwal. District Sargodha by her parents and lodged in the house of her relations. She had deserted the house of her relatives also after some time. Her father then lodged a report about the abduction of Murad Mai against Allah Ditta another brother of the petitioner at Police Station Bhalwal. Bhalwal Police recovered her from a bus stand and produced her before a Magistrate for recording her statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. In that statement she disclosed that while she was travelling by a bus she was caught hold of by Zulfiqar the driver and Kala the Conductor of the said bus and they took her from place to place and also committed rape with her forcibly. Regarding her earlier abduction from a village within jurisdiction of Police Station Sarai Sidhu she disclosed that Sada petitioner had abducted her because of previous enmity and committed rape with her at Shorkot. She however, had not stated therein that she was recovered by the police from the custody of the petitioner. It may be mentioned that after her recovery by Bhalwal Police she was X-rayed for determination of her age, and the Radiologist opined that she was of 16 years old. According to the father of the prosecutrix, she was married to one Fayyaz before her abduction,
4. I have beard the learned counsel for the parties and also seen the record.
5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner has been involved in this case due to enmity and the factum of enmity has been admitted by the prosecutrix herself. He next contended that the prosecutiix was a woman of easy virtue who is in habit of deserting her house for immoral pursuits with different persons. He also contended that she was not recovered from the custody of the petitioner and the prosecution story as set up in the l~. I. R.
Lodged at Police Station Sarai Sidhu has largely been found to be false inasmuch as the petitioner's brother Noor Muhammad and his, wife 141st. Sughran have been found to be innocent. Likewise in Bhalwal case, Allah Ditta brother of Sada has been found as innocent. To say the least, the story of prosecution that Murad Bibi was decoyed from her house on the pretext of giving sewing machine has also been found to be false. In these circumstances, learned counsel states that the case of the petitioner certainly calls for further inquiry as to the parti--cipation of the petitioner in the crime.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strenuously opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, because the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the petitioner and he has committed an offence which is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties with case: I find that two cases of abductions have been registered against the petitioner, his brother and the ladies of his family which have been largely found to be false although the petitioner has been found to be guilty. In view of the chequered character of the prosecutrix, coupled with the back ground of enmity, admitted by the prosecutrix herself, I feel that there is need of further probe as to he--their the petitioner was guilty of abducting the prosecutrix and committing rape with her.
8. In view of the above discussion, I feel inclined to allow this petition. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Multan.