Ghulam Farid complainant is father of Mst. Anaran. She was married to one Muhammad Iqbal 12 years before. 20/22 days before 9-4-1995 her husband Muhammad Iqbal left her in the house of her parents with the request to them to admonish her as he suspected her relations with Muhammad Sarwar petitioner --accused. 10/12 days before Ghulam Farid along with his wife went to the fields to do the manual labour'. Mst. Anaran was all alone in the house. When they returned back from the fields Mst. Anaran was missing. They searched for her. Munir and Ashraf P.Ws. Told them that they had seen Mst. Anaran in the company of Muhammad Sarwar, Nahra, Mst. Naziran and Kaku, going towards . The wagon stand after crossing boat 'pattan'. The said P.Ws. Told the complainant that Mst. Anaran intimated them on their inquiry that her husband Muhammad Iqbal had met with an accident and she was going to look after her. According to the complainant he found Rs.25,000, gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas and silver ornaments weighing 40 tolas missing from his house. He informed his son-in-law Muhammad lqbal. Ghulam Farid got recorded F.I.R.
No.45 dated 9-4-1995 under section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Ghumandpur, District Bahawalnagar. The Police has added section 380, P.P.C.
Muhammad Sarwar petitioner has been arrested whose bail plea has been rejected by the lower Court and he has filed this application to try his luck to be admitted to bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner expressed about the delay of 10/12 days in reporting the matter to the Police which according to him was enough for the admission of this petitioner to bail. I do not agree with him. It is a matter of commor. Knowledge that in abduction cases where the honour of the family is involved the people in our country do not rush to the Police and first try to exhaust all their sources in tracing the whereabouts of the female abductees.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Mst. Anaran got herself admitted in Darul Amaan, Bahawalpur and for that matter Muhammad Sarwar cannot be termed as an accused whose involvement in the occurrence is a question of further inquiry. He added that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and on this ground as well Muhammad Sarwar petitioner is entitled to enjoy the concession of bail. Learned State Counsel referred to the recitals of the F.I.R.
And expressed that Muhammad Sarwar is the principal accused who is not entitled to be admitted to bail. I am of the view that in exceptional cases which do not fall within the prohibitory clause the accused are not entitled to be admitted to bail. The cases of moral turpitude of instant nature can safely be included in the aforesaid category. Muhammad Sarwar petitioner was seen taking away Mst. Anaran wife of Muhammad Iqbal and the matter cannot be taken lightly as desired by his learned counsel. He is the principal accused and complaint was lodged by Muhammad Iqbal husband of Mst. Anaran with her father Ghulam Farid complainant some time before the occurrence about her illicit relations with Muhammad Sarwar petitioner accused who is responsible for bringing bad name to the family of the complainant. In the circumstances I am not inclined to admit him to bail.
4. For what has been said above, I dismiss this bail application.