A case under sections 366 and 326 read with sections 149 and 148, P, P. C. was registered against the petitioners on the 3rd of August 1971 at Police Station Qureshi in Muzalfargarh District. They applied for grant of bail to the learned Sessions Judge. Their application was dismissed, hence this petition by them for the grant of bail.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that, Mst. Aishan was the wife of one of the petitioners namely Ghulam Farid. He divorced her and a few months thereafter, she married Din Muhammad P. W. The allegation is that, on the night betyveen 1st and 2nd of August 1971. Aforesaid Ghulam Farid, accom panied by six others raided the house of Din Muhammad when he himself was armed with a hatchet and his companions with sticks, and assaulted Din Muhammad and others. They forcibly took away Mst. Aishan.
3. So far as section 326 is concerned, I do not have the medical certificate before me but I notice from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, that there was no grievous injury, because he stated "It is true that the offence under section 326 is not made out on the basis of the medical evidence in the case."
Therefore, I am now left with the allegations with regard to the abduction only. The injuries being simple, the petitioners would be entitled to the grant of bail on that score.
4. So far as the latter aspect of the case is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on the 3rd of August 1971, Mst. Aishan appeared before a Magistrate of the 1st Class at Muzaffagarh and made a state ment to the effect that she had been turned out by Din Muhammad. This contention is controverted by learned counsel for the "State" who maintains that after her recovery Mst. Aishan made a statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. on the 9th of August 1971, before a Magistrate and implicated the petitioners as the persons, who had abducted her. In view of the fact that Mst. Aishan made a statement which favoured the petitioners immediately after the occurrence, I feel inclined to hold that it is a fit case in which bail should not be with held. In fact, the petitioners are already on interim bail, which was granted to them by me on the 23rd of September 1971. It is confirmed. .