' The petitioner stands arrested in a case registered against him and others under sections 5/10/11/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, in case F.I.R. No.912, dated 27- 10-2000, Police Station City Haripur, at the behest of complainant Gulzar.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on the day of occurrence, i.e. 4-10-2000 at about 6-30 p.m.
The complainant accompanied by his brother's widow Mst. Missal Jan, were going to the house of their relative Mir Baz when Zardad, Ahmad, Ghafoor and Khushal accused alighted from a Datsun and took away Mst. Missal Jan (32/34) to some unknown destination. According to the complainant one of the accused person was armed with a pistol. The report was lodged at Police Post T.I.P., Haripur at 13-50 hours and thereafter, a case was registered.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 12-3-2001 from District Batagram. The petitioner moved applications for grant of bail before Judicial Magistrate, Haripur and Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur which were rejected vide orders, dated 20-3-2001 and 9-4-2001 respectively. Hence instant bail application.
4. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas Mr. Muhammad Ayub, Deputy Advocate-General represented the State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for bail by emphasising that the petitioner has falsely and maliciously been implicated in the instant case on the basis of wholly false and fabricated version which is apparent from the bare reading of the F.I.R. Additionally it is submitted that the medical report of Mst. Missal Jan clearly speaks of non-involvement of the petitioner with the commission of Zina; that the co-accused namely Ahmad Gul assigned the similar role qua the petitioner has already been admitted to bail by this Court through order, dated 13-3-2001 and the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief on the principle of consistency; that the petitioner is in jail ever since his arrest on 12-3-2001 and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation and that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. To substantiate the pleas, reliance has been placed on the following rulings:-- ' "Muhammad Mansha v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 758, Muhammad Afzal alias Bodi v. The State 1979 SCM R 9, Shadi Khan v. Hazrat Umar and another 2000 M LD 1251 (Peshawar) and Sher Muhammad and others v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 90 (Karachi)."
6. The learned State Counsel las defended the impugned order and submitted that the exercise of discretion by the Courts below being according to admitted principles of law governing the bail matters does not warrant any interference.
7. I have carefully attended to the submissions made at the bar in the light of the material available on the record. I may observe here that the points convassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner like false implication of the petitioner in the case due to previous enmity between the parties and conflict in the medical evidence and the version of the abductee, are matters which require deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible for the grant or refusal of bail and only tentative assessm ent is to be made.
8. In the instant case I find that Mst. Missal Jan in her magisterial statement recorded on 1-2-2001 has categorically stated that she was abducted by the petitioner and his accomplices and she remained in their confinement for 2/3 months. On one day finding an opportunity she succeeded to run away from their clutches and took refuge in the house of one Noor-ur-Rehman son of Mirza, resident of Deh Manda Gucha, District Mansehra. She narrated her woeful tale to Noor-ur-Rehman.
The latter informed Sher Afzal, brother of the deceased husband of Mst. Missal Jan about her arrival in his house. The police reached the house of Noor-urRehman and recovered her from there. She also stated that the petitioner and one of the co-accused Ahmad Gul had been committing Zina- bil-Jabr with her.
9. The bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. Is refused if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In this case the petitioner is one of the accused persons charged in the report for abduction and Zina with Mst.
Missal Jan. The medical evidence and other material collected by the prosecution, prima facie, associate the petitioner with the offence in question. The circumstances attending to this case bring it within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. And disentitles the petitioner of the relief of bail.
10. The crime in question is alleged to have taken place on 4-10-2000. The petitioner was arrested on 12-3-2001. The petitioner remained in hiding for more than 5 months. This factor also goes against the petitioner so far as the question of bail is concerned.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited various authorities in support of his contentions which have circumstances not identical with the one available in the present case, therefore, are distinguishable. These cases have no application to the facts of the present case and need no analytical survey. Even otherwise law in a particular case specially in bail matters, has small applicability to the facts of other cases. Therefore, if bail is granted in one criminal case it is not necessary that the same should be granted in the other case.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the application fails which is hereby dismissed and the bail is refused.
13. The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial Court, shall not be influenced thereby in any manner whatsoever and it shall be free to arrive at its own independent conclusion after the evidence is recorded in the case.