1. ' The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that according to medical certificate the age of Mst. Amtul Mughni is about 17 years and furthermore according to medical certificate, she was not subjected to sexual intercourse nor there were any marks of violence on her body. In view of this the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that the offence if any, committed by the applicant would fall under sections 342 and 324, P. P. C. And not under section 11 of Hudood Ordinance.
2. ' The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State does not oppose the above bail application on the grounds, that there is nothing on record to show, that Mst. Amatul Mughni was subjected to sexual intercourse and/or any violence was used against her, during her alleged detention by the present applicant. The learned Assistant Advocate-General further pointed out, that the age of the girl according to Doctor is 17 years and she was recovered on 17th December, but her statement was not recorded till 21st December, and during this period of 4 days, she remained in police custody and as such the case against the present applicant would require further inquiry, at the stage of trial.
3. ' I have carefully considered the above submission made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the medical certificate as well as through the statement of Mst. Amtul Mughni and the F. I. R. In question.
4. It is clearly mentioned in the F. I. R. That the mother of Mst. Amtul Mughni was present in the house, when she is alleged to have left the house for urinating and did not come back. Whereas according to statement of Mst. Amtul Mughni, she was alone in the house, when the present applicant knocked at the door and at the dagger point took her away. In the face of this material contradiction prime facie existing between the F. I. R. And the statement of the alleged victim and keeping in view the age of the victim and the medical certificate, in my opinion the case against the present applicant would require further inquiry at the stage of trial, as prima facie the offence may not fall under section 11 of the Hudood Ordinance. In view of my above observations, I allow the above application and direct that the applicant may be released on bail, on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 30,000 with P. R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. ' Any observations made by me in respect of merits of the case in question are tentative and as such shall not be binding on the learned trial Court, while disposing of the case in question.