' On 19-10-1997 at 1-30 p.m., Wahid Bakhsh, Akram, Muhammad Anwar, Abdul Majeed and Riaz, armed with lethal weapons and in prosecution of their common- object, trespassed into the house of complainant Taj Muhammad, enticed away his daughter Mst Zubaida and committed theft of her articles of dowry. Accordingly, F.I.R. No,71 dated 5-11-1997 under section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 380/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Derawar Tehsil Yazman District Bahawalpur.
2. Petitioners, Wahid Bakhsh and Muhammad Anwar, moved an application for bail before arrest which was declined vide order dated 22-12-1997. Thereafter their post arrest petition was also declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 9-1-1998. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mere fact that Mst Zubaida, the alleged abdubtee, has not been recovered, is no ground to keep the petitioners in jail for an indefinite period. He further canvassed that so-called articles of dowry, alleed to have been taken away by the petitioners, have not been recovered from them. As such, the ingredients of section 380, P.P.C. Are not made out against em. He next urged that Wahid Bakhsh petitioner had declared his son Akram as ' Aaq' in a proclamation issued a month prior to this incident, as such, he cannot be held responsible for the acts and omissions on his part. He further submitted that no father would join hands with his son in the commission of such offence and, as such, the prosecution story is not reliable and case of the petitioners is open for further inquiry. He relied upon Zulfivar v.
The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1517 and Qutab Din v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1519. He further submitted that petitioners have been declared innocent, as such, they are entitled to the relief sought by them and in this respect, relied upon Munir Ahmad v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 91.
4. Conversely, application has been vehemently opposed by the learned State Counsel. It is asserted that the alleged abductee, Mst. Zubaida, is of 14 years and has been abducted by Akram, who is son of Wahid Bakhsh and brothers of Muhammad Anwar, petitioners. He further contends that other accused named in the F.I.R., namely, Abdul Majeed and Riaz, have not so far joined the investigation and are still at large, that all the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Have corroborated the prosecution version, that the mere fact that police has declared the present petitioners as innocent is no ground to release them on bail, as opinion of police is not binding on the Court and relied upon Muhammad Akram alias Gaman v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 122. He further submitted that as Mst. Zubaida, the alleged abductee, has not so far been recovered, so even on this account, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of bail and relied upon Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1987 M LD 3125.
5. The contents of F.I.R. Clearly reveal that both the petitioners alongwith Akram, Abdul Majeed and Riaz have been assigned a specific role in the instant occurrecne culminating into the lodging of instant F.I.R. There is no doubt that an active and major role has been attributed to Akram, who is stated to have enticed away Mst Zubaida at the time of occurrence. However, the presence of present petitioners at that particular point of time is borne out from the contents of F.I.R. Admittedly, Mst. Zubaida, the alleged abductee, has not been recovered so far and whereabouts of Akram alongwith Abdul Majeed and Riaz, co-accused of the petitioners, are not known. The petitioners being charged for the commission of offences punishable with either description which may extend to seven years and being in jail for less than two months and alleged abductee still not recovered from their co-accused Akram and other co-accused still at large, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought by them.
' Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.