' Muhammad Rafique complainant got recorded First Information Report No,84, dated 8-4-1999 at Police Station Tarkhani, District Faisalabad under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 with the allegation that he was resident of Chak No, 49-G.B. While he worked in Gojra in a factory. He returned to his home on 1-4-1999 when his wife told him that his daughter Mst. Riffat Bibi aged about 16 years went out to obey the call of nature who did not return.
He started to search his daughter Mst. Riffat Bibi. He was informed by Muhammad Afzal and Shahid Javed P.Ws. That they had seen Liaqat Ali (petitioner-accused) alongwith Muhammad Nawaz co- accused taking Mst. Riffat Bibi. He prayed for taking the legal action about the abduction for fornication of his daughter Mst. Riffat Bibi.
2. The law was set in motion. Mst. Riffat Bibi was recovered on 10-4-1999 whose statement was recorded by the police under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who implicated Liaqat Ali petitioner towards her abduction for fornication. Liaqat Ali petitioner was arrested on 18-4-1999.
The bail plea of Liaqat Ali petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Court of Session who has filed this petition before this Court with the same desire.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that there is delay of 8 days in reporting the matter to the police and that Mst. Rifait Bibi was a consenting party as she did not raise the hue and cry while shet was allegedly being taken by the petitioner-accused. I have to express the view that the aforesaid reasons have no legal weight.
With respect to the delay in reporting the matter to the police it can safely he recorded that it is matter of common knowledge that in abduction cases when the honour of the families is involved the people in the country do not rush to the police and try to first exhaust all their resources to trace out the whereabouts of the abductees and the accused. In the instant matter Muhammad Rafique complainant worked in a factory at Gojra and his house was situated in Chak No,49-G.B. In her statement recorded under sect ion 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 10-4-1999 Mst.
Riffat Bibi abductee specifically stated that Liaquat Ali petitioner-accused and his co-accused Muhammad Nawaz abducted her by issuing the threats while she was going to the fields and both of them committed Zina with her without her consent at different places and that thereafter at Bus Adda Chak No, 45-G.B. She was recovered by the police. She was got medically examined. Liaqat Ali petitioner was got medically examined for potency who was found to be potent. The aforesaid material collected by the police has prima facie connected Liaqat All petitioner-accused and his co-accused with the occurrence and thus he is prima facie liable under section 10(3)/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which fall within the prohibitory clause.
The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mst. Riffat Bibi was a consenting party need not be analysed as this defence can better be looked into during the trial. However, in case this fact is established she would be criminally liable but even then Liaqat All petitioner shall not be able/entitled to save his skin. I, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the State that it is not a fit case for the admission of the petitioner to bail.
I, therefore, find no force in this bail application and dismiss the same.