' The four petitioners were granted interim bail by order dated 28th of November 1974. The case has come up for confirmation. According to the F. I. R. Lodged by Ata Muhammad on 2-11-1974 at 9 a. m.
In Police Station, Garh in the District of Lyallpur the petitioners alongwith their co-accused Shamir and Sharaf had emu variously armed and had lifted forcibly Mst. Zainab Bibi and Gullan daughters of Sher.
2. Ata Muhammad, the first informant stated that Mst. Zainab was about 35 to 36 years of age while Mst. Gillian 23 to 24 years of age and the latter was married to him with the consent of her sister.
The deceased father of the two women had left 22 acres of land which had been inherited by his two daughters. The marriage of Ata Muhammad appears to have aroused the indignation of Shamir and other accused in this case because they thought that the land belonging to the two sisters will ultimately be used to the benefit of Ata Muhammad and they being the collaterals of the deceased will be deprived of all benefits arising therefrom. The two girls and Ata Muhammad were originally residing in Natho Wasali in the jurisdiction of Police Station Noor Shah District Sahiwal but out of fear they shifted to the dhari of Nara in village Bollanwala Police Station Garh in Lyallpur District. About 10 and 12 days before the lodging of the F. I. R. All the four petitioners and their co- accused forcibly took away Mst. Zainab and Mst, Gullan. Thereafter they took thirteen buffaloes belonging to the two sisters from one Mahia who was keeping the cattle with him.
3. During the investigation of the case Mst. Zainab was recovered on 9-11-1974 in the presence of Shera accused. She was produced before the Resident Magistrate, Samundri on 11-11-1974 and she made a statement before him under section 164, Cr. P. C. To the effect that she and her sister were forcibly abducted and that their cattle were forcibly taken away by the accused. She further stated that her sister was taken away to some unknown place but she was recovered in the presence of Shera and was raped by him with the connivance of other accused.
4. During the course of argument in this case, two copies of nikahnamas were relied upon. One indicates that Mst. Zainab was married to Sharaf on 30-9-1974 and the other is with regard to the marriage of Mst. Gullan with Jaffar, petitioner on 1st of November 1974. Mst. Gullan has been described in this nikahnarna as a divorcee.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first informant has not explained the delay in lodging the F. I. R. It is also pointed out that Mst. Gullan filed a complaint under section 452, P. P. C.
Etc, before a Magistrate at Pakpattan and made a statement that Ata Muhammad the first informant in this case, and other persons named in the complaint had tried to lift her forcibly. It is therefore urged that the case against the petitioners is false and Sharaf and Jaffar accused had been lawfully married to the two abductees.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the delay is there but the allegations made by the first informant have been substantiated by the statement of Mst. Zainab before the Magistrate and the recovery of eight buffaloes by the Investigating Officer from the accused. He also submits that on the basis of the evidence before the police, it cannot be said that the petitioner are entitled to the confirmation of the order of bail before arrest. It is urged that the considerations for grant of bail are quite different from those which prevail when an accused has been arrested. Learned counsel submits that confirmation of the order of bail to the petitioners shall hinder the progress of the case especially, when Shera their co-accused has not yet been arrested.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged that the description of Mst. Gullan in the nikahnama as a divorced woman indicates that the accused were conscious of the fact that she was already married to another person. It is further pointed out that the naafi of Mst. Gullan claimed to have been performed with Jaffar was entered in the relevant register on 1-11-1974 i,e, about 11 or 12 days after her forcible abduction.
8. Mr. Azhar Hafiz learned counsel for the petitioners submits that whatever the merits of the case, Ahmad petitioner is an old man of about 70 years of age and he may be permitted to remain on bail. The learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant do not oppose this request.
9. After considering all the circumstances of the case, I refuse to confirm bail in respect of Jaffar, Humayun and Khan petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 B Ahmad son of Kandha is permitted to remain on bail. The bail order in his favour is confirmed. He shall make himself available to the police if and when summoned for purposes of interrogation.