About the abduction of his daughter Mst. Shabana Kausar aged about 14 years by Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused 23 days before, Talib Hussain complainant got recorded F.I.R. No.48 dated 2-8-1994 at Police Station Dera Nawab Sahib, District Bahawalpur under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. According to the complainant he found his daughter Mst. Shabana Kausar missing from his house who was told by Riasat A.I and Ghulam Nabi P.Ws that they had seen her in the house of Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused.
2. Mst. Shabana Kausar arrived back to her home after the registration of the case whose statement was got recorded by the police from a Magistrate 1st Class under section 164, Cr.P.C.
When she deposed that she was removed by Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused to Karachi where she was confined in a room wherein he committed forcible Zina with her and that after some days he left her in the Chak of her father as she had fallen ill. The police has added section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The bail plea of Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur who has filed this petition before this Court to try his luck to be admitted to bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. The main contentions of the learned counsel for Muhammad Akram petitioner are that there is delay of about 23 days in reporting the matter to the police, that at Karachi Mst. Shabana Kausar did not make any effort to get herself rescued and that even according to the F.I.R. No body had seen Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused removing Mst.
Shabana Kausar. On the contrary learned State counsel laid the emphasis that Muhammad Akram is the principal accused who is responsible for the creation of the present situation for himself and on the basis of the material to be produced by the prosecution during the trial he is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
4. In my view it is not a case for the admission of Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused to bail. It can safely be expressed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in abduction cases where the honour of the family is involved the people in the country do not rush to the police and try to first exhaust all their sources to trace out the whereabouts of the abductees and the accused. On the basis of this aspect of the matter the delay in reporting the matter to the police is not fatal to the prosecution case and also would not bring the case of the prosecution within the purview of further inquiry. The statements of Muhammad Siddique, Riasat A.I and Ghulam Nabi have been recorded by the police who have expressed that Mst. Shabana Kausar was seen in the house of Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused whose father had directed him to take her to the house of her father. At this juncture the statement of Mst. Shabana Kausar abductee recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By a Magistrate 1st Class has to steal the eminence as she has specifically named Muhammad Akram as the principal accused towards her abduction and commission of forcible fornication with her. The assertion raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mst.
Shabana Kausar did not make any effort to rescue herself from the room at Karachi, in my view, is simply far-fetched in view of the age of Mst. Shabana Kausar who according to the copy of the birth entry forming part of the file was born on 4-12-1981 and was allegedly abducted 23 days before 2-8-1994. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion would be that the recitals of the F.I.R. Cannot be ignored as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage it is proper to express that according to the medico legal report issued by the Lady Doctor, after the examination of Mst. Shabana Kausar, sexual intercourse had been performed with her and in view of the fact that Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused is the sole and principal accused in the matter the medical evidence is entitled to due legal weight. Yet an other aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of which is to this effect that Muhammad Akram petitioner-accused remained a fugitive of law for many months as he could be arrested on 20-1-1995. Keeping in view the aforesaid analysis and dissection of the matter brought before me and the evidence to be produced during the trial by the prosecution it -can safely be expressed that this petitioner is prima facie liable for the commission of the aforesaid offences falling under the prohibitory clause who cannot be allowed to come out of Jail by grantinghim bail.
5. I, therefore, see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.