' Briefly stated the facts of the case in hand are that Khurshied Anwar, complainant, had reported to the Police that his daughter, Mst. Iram Naz, had accompanied his sister, Mst. Sadaqat, to the Government Girls School, Shabqadar on 22-6-1999, where Mst. Sadaqat (P.W.) had to appear in her F.A. Examination; that after having appeared in the paper, Mst. Sadaqat reached the house and informed him that Mst. Iram Naz, the alleged abductee, awaiting outside the Examination Hall, had disappeared and that her whereabouts were not known.
2. Accordingly the complainant/petitioner reported the matter to the police and his report was entered at Mad. No,8 of the Daily Diary kept in Police Station, Shabqadar, Charsadda and investigations started.
3. After a couple of days that the alleged abductee reached home and her statement as well as the statement of Mst. Sadaqat were recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., who charged respondents Nos.1 to 5 for abducting her. In her statement the abductee charged Arifullah accused-respondent No,1, only, for having committed Zina-bil-Jabar with her. Resultantly the present case was set on foot against respondents Nos.1 to 5 under sections 5, 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Vide; F.I.R. No,545 registered at Police Station, Shabqadar, District Charsadda on 8-7-1999.
4. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 namely Naseer and Arahsd sons of Rizwanullah were admitted to pre- arrest bail by the Sessions Judge Charsadda (Mr. Muhammad Safdar Khan), Vide: his order, dated 28-7-1999 in B.B.A. No,520 of 1999 (Arifullah and others v. The State).
5. The record of the case would reveal that the said pre-arrest bail was isntituted on 9-7-1999 and decided on 28-7-1999. Accused respondent No,1 Ariffulah approached the Sessions Court on 20-7- 1999. He too, was granted pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Judge, vide: his order, dated 28-7-1999 in B.B.A. No,545 of 1999 (Arifullah v. The State).
6. It appears that Khurshid Anwar, petitioner/complainant then filed an application for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3. This Bail Cancellation Application No,B.C.A. 670 of 1999 (Khurshid Anwar v. Arifullah and others) was filed on 4-9-1999. In the meantime, on the same date i,e, 4-9-1999, respondent No,4 Muhammad Tahir and respondent No,5, Abdur Rab filed Bail Application No,671 of 1999 (Muhammad Tahir and others v. The State).
7. I have not been able to understand as to why the Sessions Judge was in a great hurry and decided the Bail Cancellation Application (No,670 of 1999) filed by the complainant and the bail application (No,671 of 1999) filed by Muhammad Tahir, respondent No,4 and Abdur Rab, respondent No,5 on that very day i,e,, on 4-9-1999 by his two separate orders. Vide: one order he dismissed the bail cancellation application and vide: the other he granted bail to Muhammad Tahir, respondent No,4 and Abdur Rab, respondent No,5.
8. Aggrieved by the four orders of the Sessions Judge, mentioned said above, two recorded on 28- 7-1999 and two recorded on 4-9-1999, the complainant has now approached this Court for the redress of his grievance saying that reasonable grounds were there to connect respondents Nos.1 to 5 with the commission of the offence charged with and, therefore, they were not entitled to grant of the concession of pre-arrest bail/bail after arrest.
9. Mr. Jehanzeb Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Isa Khan, Advocate learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5 and Kh. Azhar Rashid learned Assistant Advocate-General for respondent No,6 State present and heard, record of the case perused.
10. It may be stated at the very outset that in this case the Sessions Judge appears to have acted with a lighting speed in disposing of the petitions in question. Especially the order recorded by him on 4-9-1999 vide: which he had disposed of the bail cancellation application as well as the bail applications on the very day on which these were filed. I repeat here that I have not been able to understand as to what was the urgency which prompted the Sessions Judge to act in such a great haste.
11. However, without going into the merits of the case at this stage, and after having gone through the record of the case carefully, with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I am convinced in my mind that reasonable grounds do exist for believing that Arifullah, son of Rizwanullah (respondent No,1) is prima facie, connected with the commission of the offence charged with. It is because he has been charged specifically by the abductee, aged about 15/16 years of age, for having committed rape with her.
12. Besides this the statement of the abductee recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., is fully supported by the medical report given by Dr. Yasmin Afridi, Women Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Shabqadar who had examined her on 10-8-1999. In the circumstances, Arifullah was not entitled to be extended the benefit of the concession of pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Judge.
13. Accordingly the pre-arrest bail granted to Arifullah son of Rizwanullah (respondent No,1) is cancelled/recalled. He is present in the Court and shall be taken into custody and sent to Jail forthwith.
14. As far as the case of the other accused-respondents i,e, Nos.2 to 5, is concerned I am of the view that it would be seen at the time of the trial, after the recording of the evidence, as to whether or not they had actually participated in the commission of the alleged crime. The bail cancellation application in respect of these respondents is rejected.