1. ' On 24-1-2000, absconding accused Mst. Yasmin visited the house of Rozi Khan father of complainant. At about 11-00 a.m. The requested mother of abductee to permit her daughter Yasmin to accompany them to their house. She turned down the aforesaid request upon which, she again asked her that girl Shah.La aged 11 years be allowed to accompany them. She was allowed to go with aforesaid lady Mst. Yasmin wife of Khair Mohammad accused. Shakila also took her two years old brother Shahid with her. The children did not turn up till late hours of the night.
2. Rozi Khan father of the girl went to the house of accused Khair Mohammad and found it locked. On enquiries, the neighbours informed him that accused, Khair Mohammad and his family members were seen going in a taxi to some unknown place. Ayaz Khan brother of abductee returned late to his home and was apprised of the aforesaid facts. He made search for the children and informed the concerned police. On the night, between 28/29 January, Rozi Khan and Ayaz Khan came to know that their children were confined in the house of Khair Mohammad at Naseerabad. They contacted A.S.I. Saeed Shah of Police Station Naseerabad. The complainant and the police went to the house of accused where they saw that abductee girl and inmates of the house were sleeping.
3. They recovered the victim girl and apprehended accused Khair Mohammad. The abductee girl disclosed that accused Khair Mohammad had committed Zina upon her. Her brother Shahid was taken away by Farheen Khan accused and absconding accused Mst. Yasmin. The police on return to police station recorded F.I.R. Being Crime No, 18/2000, under section 364/A/34 P.P.C. Read with section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
4. ' On 29-1-2000, the police arrested applicant Farheen Khan and recovered Master Shahid Khan from his possession, in presence of mashirs Azam Khan and PC Bashir Hussain.
5. ' It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that all the witnesses are related inter-se. The recovery of abductee is not witnessed by any independent mashir. The evidence of abductee girl Mst. Shakila is not supported by any independent evidence and the evidence of prosecution witnesses suffered from material discrepancies. The case of applicant, therefore needs further inquiry. The reliance is placed upon the cases of The Vice President (Administration), National Bank of. Pakistan and 2 others v. Bisharat All and 2 others PLD 1995 S.C. 1, Muhammad Jameel and another v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ. 1064, Araz Mohammad and 3 others v.
6. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 806, Zahid Hussain v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 420, Zulfiqar Ali v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ.. 422, Rab Nawaz v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ. 320, Nazar Muhammad and others v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ. 2344; PLD 1972 S.C. 2077 and Mohammad Sajjad v. The State 1996 M LD 103 and Muhammad Nadeem v. The State 1996 M LD 189.
7. ' Mr. Arshad Lodhi learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the bail plea of accused on the ground that the witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution and victim girl Mst. Shakila has involved him. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is likely to be decided within few days. The evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be deeply evaluated and assessed at this stage.
8. The victim girl Mst. Shakila has been examined in the trial Court. She has stated in her deposition that the present applicant and other accused had taken her in a taxi. They were taken to their house where the mother of present applicant, his wife and Sultan Bibi the sister-in-law of accused were present. At night time, they were shifted to some other house, where accused Farheen and Yasmin went away, leaving Shakeela alone with accused Khair Mohammad, who committed rape upon her. The applicant was arrested on 29-1-2000 and Master Shahid Khan aged about two years was recovered from his possession. The inconsistencies or discrepancies in 164 Cr. P.C. Statement and the depositions of prosecution witnesses cannot be deeply evaluated and assessed at bail stage. The impugned bail order shows that almost all the witnesses have been examined and the case can finally be decided within few days. The applicant has not alleged any enmity with the prosecution witness. The offence for which accused has been charged with falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr. P.C. The case law cited at the bar has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The applicant does not deserve bail. Bail application stands dismissed.
9. ' However, the learned trial Court is directed to examine the remaining witnesses and conclude the trial within eight (8) weeks after the receipt of police paper.