1. ' The F.I.R. Was lodged by complainant Gul Hassan on 23-1-2000 at Police Station Naudero being Crime No,13 of 2000 for an offence under sections 11/16 of Zina Hudood Ordinance and 14, Tazir wherein he stated that his daughter Badshahzadi aged about 18 years was married to his nephew Majid Ali about a year back and they used to live with him. Accused Muneer Ahmed was his neighbor and used to look at his said daughter with bad intention. He was restrained not to do so but he did not listen. It is stated that on the night of the incident, the inmates of the house were sleeping when at 1-30 a.m. They woke-up on some knock and noise and saw on bulb shining's that Muneer, Zameer and Allah Dino along with other two unidentified persons entered their house. They were duly armed with Repeater, 222 Rifle like K.K. Gun and the Pistols respectively. Muneer took his daughter Badshahzadi whereas accused Zameer carried bag containing articles. The complainant' party remained silent due to the potation of the fire-arms. They noticed that one Tractor was parked outside the house. They seated therein and went away. The complainant then checked their articles and found the golden ornaments, clothes, briefcase and the cash Rs,4,000 missing.
2. The particulars of said valuables are mentioned in the F.I.R.
3. ' The police after registration of the F.I.R. Took up investigation and submitted challan.
4. ' It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Ashique Dhamraho learned counsel for the applicant that the girl has not been recovered as yet and as such neither there is any medical evidence available on the record nor there is evidence regarding the rape. It is argued that the F.I.R. Is delayed by about 16 hours. It is stated that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the accused and the case requires further enquiry. The reference is made to the case of Wali Muhammad and another v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2133 and Muhammad Saleem Akhtar v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 1545.
5. ' Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the accused party armed with fire-arms sneaked into the house of the complainant party, taken away household articles of the complainant and abducted the married girl of the complainant on gun-point. It is argued that the parents of the girl are seriously worried to know about the survival of their daughter.
6. The perusal of F.I.R. Reveals that names of the applicants/accused figure in the F.I.R. With a specific role. The applicants were duly armed with fire-arms. They have abducted the married girl on the potation of weapons and so also taken away household articles of the complainant. So far delay of 16 A hours is concerned, it is of no consequences in abduction matters, the honour of the families is at stake and the people think over seriously before going to police station for the lodgment of the F.I.R. Neither the abductee is recovered nor robbed property.
7. ' Under such circumstances it cannot be held at this stage that there appear no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants/accused are not guilty of the offence with which they are charged. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. ' The case-law cited at the bar has no relevance with the facts and the circumstances of the instant case. This is fresh case which has not yet proceeded. Hence the bail application is hereby dismissed.