RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J.- A case under Sections 364/506 PPC read with Section 11/10/18 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered at the report of the father of the abductee vide FIR No. 25, dated 4.3.1997 at Police Station, Golrah Sharif, Islamabad.
2. It was contended in the FIR that Kiran Naseer a daughter of the complainant had gone to school on 1.3.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. But did not return till 2.3.1997. He expressed suspicion on the Administrator namely Abdul Rashid and Chowkidars namely Muhammad Aslam and Aziz that they had abducted her.
3. The abductee on her recovery implicated Israr one of the co-accused of the petitioner for having abducted her with the object of marrying her against her will. Thereafter she made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, in which she also implicated the present petitioner that while she was kept by the aforesaid Israr in his house, the petitioner Rab Nawaz also came there and threatened her by pulling out a knife that she should marry the aforesaid Israr. The aforesaid Rab Nawaz is the paternal uncle of the aforesaid abductee.
4. It is submitted that there is no allegation of sexual inter-course against the petitioner or his co- accused; that Rab Nawaz has been named only because he wanted that the abductee be married to some other person.
5. It is further contended that the parties have come to terms for which the , father of the abductee and the complainant in this case had made a statement upon oath before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad on 6.8.1997 during the hearing of the bail petition that parties have come to terms and that the accused be released on bail. Similarly prayer was made by the abductee by tendering an affidavit before the aforesaid Court in which she also expressed that she will not like to pursue the case in view of compromise as she has not been subjected to sexual inter-course or any other foul play.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the foregoing facts, atleast it has become a case of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to bail.
7. The Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail on the ground that the challan has already been submitted to the Court concerned for trial. He has however, added that fact regarding compromise and affidavit cannot be denied and that the bail of the petitioner was denied by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad only on the ground that the abductee after tendering the affidavit did not appear in the Court in person.
8. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the abductee is being married shortly and as such she could not appear in the Court below. However, it is alleged that this was not a good ground for refusing the bail.
9. I have considered the foregoing facts and find that there is no allegation of zina or abduction against the petitioner, who is real paternal uncle of the abductee. Allegation against him is that he entered the room where the abductee was allegedly detained by the Israr a co-accused in the case. He allegedly threatened. Her that he should marry aforesaid Israr. This fact has since been denied in the affidavit sworn by the complainant and the abductee, therefore, the matter needs further inquiry. This petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Learned trial Court.