' By this judgment I propose to dispose of the instant bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,271 of 2001) and the connected bail cancellation application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,392 of 2001) as both have arisen out of one and the same F.I.R.
' Noor Niaz alias Veran, Mst. Naila Nasreen accused-petitioner in the instant bail application and Naqibullah accused-respondent No,1 in the connected bail cancellation application are facing prosecution in case F.I.R. No,164, dated 23-10-2000 under sections 5/11/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Police Station Takhti Nasrati, District Karak. Accused- petitioners in the instant petition were refused bail by the Courts below, hence they approached this Court for their release on bail while in the connected bail cancellation application Khan Wazir complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to Naqibullah accused-respondent No,1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Karak by his order, dated 13-1-2001.
3. The complainant Khan Wazir on 23-10-2000, lodged F.I.R. With Police Station, Takhti Nasrati, narrating therein that he had given his daughter Mst. Gulapa in Nikah to Noor Niaz about 1-1/2 years ago but one month prior to the occurrence Noor Niaz told him that he is not ready to marry Mst.
Gulapa but instead wanted the hands of his another daughter namely Mst. Naila. The complainant refused the said demand. On the day of occurrence at Deegar Vela the complainant alongwith his brother Aseel Mir and nephew Gul Wazir were coming back from their job to their house, he saw Noor Niaz and Naqibullah taking away his daughter Mst. Naila and one other minor aged about 7 years in a motor car. They caught hold accused Naqibullah while the other accused had taken away his daughter Mst. Naila and minor in a motor car.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that Mst. Naila Nasreen is living with the accused-petitioner Noor Niaz and has married with him on her own accord has a great force in it as the same get support from the affidavit, dated 31-10-2000 given by Mst. Naila Nasreen wherein she has stated that she was betrothed with Noor Niaz petitioner by her father but later on, her father did not fulfil commitment and wanted to sell her to another person in lieu of huge amount. Besides this Mst. Naila Nasreen in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C.
On 16-12-2000 before Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate-II, Karak has categorically stated that she contracted a valid marriage with Noor, Niaz petitioner upon her free-will, consent and without any force. She further deposed that she had never been abducted by anyone, rather she left the house of her parents on her free-will and she was never in the Nikah of anyone before the Nikah with Noor Niaz.
6. In view of the all these facts and circumstances at this stage, the false involvement of the accused cannot be ruled out. As such their case requires further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, the bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,271 of 2001) is accepted and the accused-petitioners are allowed bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.
7. With regard to Naqibullah, accused-respondent No,1 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,392 of 2001 is concerned, the only allegation against him is for abetment which is yet to be determined at the trial. At present there is no allegation of misuse/abuse of the concession of bail against the accused-respondent No,
1. The discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge, Karak in allowing bail to him, is neither injudicious nor improper, thus, the same is upheld, Consequently, the bail cancellation application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,392 of 2001) is dismissed.