' The petitioner has applied for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him and others vide F.I.R. No,218, dated 4-8-1998 for an offence under section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Sambarial District Sialkot.
2. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. On 8-7-1998 at about 2-00 p.m. The complainant was present in his house with his family members when Mst. Bano wife of Muhammad Razzaq who was residing in the neighborhood came to his house and asked the complainant's sister Mst. Nasreen Bibi to accompany her; that Mst. Bano used to come to the complainant's house even earlier, therefore, he did not object to their going out together; that when Mst. Nasreen Bibi and Mst. Bano reached Nishterabad Road, Shahzad Ahmad (Muhammad Sajjad, petitioner), his 3 brothers named Irshad Ahmad, Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Razzaq and 2 other persons named Jalal and Muhammad Ashraf were present with a Toyota Wagon. Mst. Bano told them that she had brought Mo. Nasreen who be taken away and her Nikah be performed with Shahzad Ahmad (Muhammad Sajjad, petitioner). The complainant started searching out his sister. He learnt from Abdul Majeed and Manzoor Hussain that they had seen Mst. Nasreen Bibi going in the company of the accused persons in a Toyota Wagon. The complainant contacted the accused persons who have been promising to return the abductee but finally refused to do the needful on 4-8-1998.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant and perused the material on the record. The alleged abductee had made a statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Before the Magistrate on 27-8-1998. Her statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Was also recorded on 23-9-1998. In both her statements she stated that earlier she was married to one Saifullah who had divorced her on 15-1-1998; that she had received the Talaqnama from her earlier husband when she was living in the house of her mother at Sanda Kalan Lahore; that her parents wanted to give her hand in marriage with some other person but she had voluntarily contracted marriage with Sajjad Ahmad alias Shahzad on 26-5-1998 and that nobody had abducted her. A copy of the Nikahnama placed on the record shows that the alleged Nikah between the petitioner and the abductee had been performed on 26-5-1998.
4. The complainant's learned counsel has urged that the Nikahnama is back dated and has been got prepared in connivance with Nikah Khawan and the alleged witnesses of the Nikah. He adds that had the alleged Nikah of the abductee been performed with the petitioner, the parents of the abductee and other family members must have known it. He strenuously urged that the mode of back dated Nikahnamas is generally adopted it, run-away marriages to avoid penal consequences under the law. The arguments rose by the complainant's learned counsel merits consideration but at this stage I refrain from expressing any opinion on the same and leave it to be determined by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the evidence produced before him. Suffice it to observe that Mst. Nasreen Bibi abductee was earlier married to one Saifullah son of Haji Ghulam Muhammad who submitted an affidavit before the police stating therein that once he had pronounced Talaq against his wife due to sheer emotions but had retracted it shortly thereafter due to the intervention of the near relatives of his wife; that a compromise was effected and thereafter Mst. Nasreen Bibi had been residing with him as his wife. The question whether the Talaq pronounced by Saifullah, first husband of the abductee had become effective or not and whether she could lawfully contract marriage with the petitioner requires to be determined by the Investigating Officer at this stage. Therefore, I refrain from making any other observation on this aspect of the case. Mst, Nasreen Bibi the alleged abductee has also filed a writ petition (No,18196 of 1998) for abashment of the F.I.R. Which was admitted for regular hearing on 8-9-1998 and is still pending. It will be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law.
5. The present petition is one for grant of pre-arrest bail. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted unless the petitioner succeeds in showing that the prosecution has been launched against him by the complainant with mala fide intentions and that the police is out to arrest him with ulterior motives of harassing and humiliating him. In the present case, there is no cogent material to show that the complainant or the police are actuated with malice or ulterior motives of harassing and humiliating the petitioner. The complainant has lodged the report after showing considerable restraint and providing an opportunity to the accused persons to return the abductee. For that reason the report was lodged with a delay of about 20 days which, prima facie, negates the element of mala fides on the part of the complainant. In cases pertaining to run-away marriages, there are no equities in favor of the accused persons because they violate the established social and religious norms of our society and create chaos/Fasaad by contracting "marriage" with girls/women against the wishes of their parents/Walis. Such disgraceful "marriages" generate bitterness and enmity between the families of parties concerned and result in commission of various other offences. In the present case, there is yet another factor which has persuaded me not to confirm interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner. He had filed the bail petition in this Court on 12-9-1998 and was allowed interim pre-arrest bail on 14-9-1998. After the institution of the bail petition in this Court, he was involved in commission of another offence which took place on 13-9-1998. About the said occurrence, second case was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R.
No,387 of 1998 UT Police Station City Daska on the statement of Tanveer Ahmad, real brother of the abductee. He stated in the F.I.R. That he along with his brothers Muhammad Farooq, Abdul Ghafoor and another person named Abdul Hameed were going to their counsel for consultation and were intercepted at Afshan Road Daska Kalan by a white car out of which Muhammad Ashraf empty handed, Mushtaq Ahmad armed with Sota, Sajjad alias Shahzad (the petitioner) armed with a pistol, Razzaq and Irshad aimed with a Danda and a Sota respectively alighted; that the petitioner started abusing and threatening the complainant party not to pursue the case against them, failing which the other female members of their family would also be abducted. Upon this Muhammad Farooq abused the accused. Muhammad Ashraf picked up a brick and hit at the face of Muhammad Farooq causing an injury on his left eye. Mushtaq inflicted a Sota blow on the left shoulder of Muhammad Farooq. The P.Ws. Went forward to rescue Muhammad Farooq whereupon the petitioner aimed his pistol at them and threatened them not to come forward otherwise they would be fired at. Razzaq and Irshad accused also gave blows to Muhammad Farooq with their weapons. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Muhammad Farooq was medically examined and then the case was reported to the police, Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is a desperate person, had taken the law in his own hands for threatening the complainant party not to peruse the case against them. He does not deserve concession of pre- arrest bail.
6. The petitioner's learned counsel has relied on the following judgments:-
(1) Mst. Parveen and others v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 2375,
(2) Mst. Lshrat Bibi and 2 others v. The State 1990 ALD 87(1),
(3) Muhammad Ashraf and others v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 1421,
(4) Mst. Hurmat Bibi and another v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 56
(5) Muhammad Irfan v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 817.
' In the case of Mst. Parveen and others pre-arrest bail was granted because it appeared that the alleged abductee was earlier engaged with the son of sister of the complainant whom the abductee did not want to marry. Moreover, it appeared that the entire family of the alleged in-laws of the abductee had been involved with ulterior motive of harassing and humiliating them. In the case of Mst. Ishrat Bibi and 2 others, pre-arrest bail was granted because Nikahnama had been placed on the record showing marriage between the abductee and the accused persons. Full facts of this case have not been published. In the case of Muhammad Ashraf and others, pre-arrest bail was granted because in view of the statement of the abductee in favor of the accused, the police was proceeding to get the case cancelled. Moreover, the prosecution had not opposed the accused person's application for pre-arrest bail. In the case of Mst. Hurmat Bibi and another, the alleged abductee aged about 18/20 years was engaged with the accused and had contracted marriage with him of her own free will about 3 days before registration of the case. It was also found that Mst. Hurmat Bibi was implicated in the case simply because she was sister of Wali Muhammad accused. In the case of Muhammad Wan, pre-arrest bail was allowed to the accused as the alleged abductee had been making contradictory statements. The accused had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Narowal and the alleged abductee had supported the case of the accused.
7. In criminal cases facts of two cases are rarely identical. Therefore, each case has to be decided on its own facts. Moreover, views expressed by one learned Single Judge of the High Court are not binding on another even on law points.
8. In my view, ordinarily the concession of pre-arrest bail should not be extended in favor of the accused persons in cases pertaining to abduction of girls/women, particularly minor girls or in cases of runaway marriages unless strong grounds showing mala' fides on the part of the complainant or the police are made out,. A case may be fit for grant of bail after arrest but this consideration is not relevant for grant of pre-arrest hail.
9. For the foregoing discussion, the interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the I petitioner vide order, dated 14-91998 is recalled and his hail petition is dismissed.
Pre-arrest .