' Mst. Allawan Bibi petitioner seeks the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shcikhupura, on 18-10-1989, in a case under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979, registered at Police Station Bhikki, vide F.I.R. No, 486, dated 13-9-1989.
2. The allegations against the respondents are that they on 1-9-1989, at about Shamwela, forcibly abducted the petitioner and thereafter subjected her to Zina bil jabr.
3. The learned counsel in support of this petition relied upon Nadra v. Jamait Khan and another PLD 1968 SC 310 and submitted that for granting bail in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. To Court has to look to the F.I.R., statement of witnesses under section 161 or 164, Cr.P.C. And other incriminating evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation.
He submitted that in the present case, the petitioner (prosecutrix) made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before a Magistrate, in which she named the respondents, who have allegedly committed rape with her, hence there was sufficient material to connect them with the offence which falls within the prohibitory clause. He submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge by a perfunctory order without appreciating the real controversy between the parties, allowed bail to the respondents on extraneous consideration that there was civil litigation pending between the parties and the case is the result of dishonest investigation as the respondents were arrested on 12-9-1989 at 1-45 a.m. But their formal arrest was shown on 13-9-1989. The learned counsel has referred to section 156, Cr.P.C. Which says that any defect in the investigation would not affect the case itself.
4. The learned counsel for the State supported this petition.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during the investigation except Umar Hayat son of Amir (respondent No,1), the other respondents were found innocent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police vide his Zimni, dated 12-11-1989. He further submitted that the trial Court exercised his discretion in proper and judicious manner, because in view of background of litigation, the case against the respondents is of further inquiry and they have not misused the concession of bail. He also submitted that the case is ripe for evidence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the requirements of law as laid down in the aforementioned case, were not complied with by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.. The law requires that in order to find out whether there exist 'reasonable grounds', the Court has to look into the material, i,e, the FIR., statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. And any other piece of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, which could possibly connect the accused. Applying the aforesaid principle, I find there is sufficient material to connect respondent No,1 with the crime, because, he was found guilty by the police and has been named in the F.I.R.; the prosecutrix has specifically mentioned that he committed rape with her, which fact has been corroborated by the report of the Chemical Examiner. Therefore, I find that there are reasonable grounds to connect him with the crime and he was granted bail on unsound principle of law. The petition qua Umar Hayat is accepted and the bail granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby cancelled. He shall be taken into custody immediately and sent to jail. However, the case of other respondents falls within the scope of further inquiry, because, they were found innocent by the police. In this view of the matter, the petition, so far as respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, is dismissed.