2013 Y L R 703
[Balochistan]
Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, J
MUHAMMAD AMIN and 2 others ---Applicants
Versus
The STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.612 of 2012, decided on 12th December, 2012.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497 ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365 -B/452/ 496 -A/ 147/ 148/ 149 ---Kid-
napping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., enticing or taking away
or detaining with criminal intent a woman, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons,
unlawful assembly ---Bail, grant of ---No case of abduction was made out ---Effect ---
Allegation against accused persons was that they came to complainant's house while armed
with weapons and forcibly abducted his sister/all eged abductee ---Alleged abductee recorded
her statement before the Magistrate to the effect that she left her house with her own consent
and free -will and contracted marriage with one of the accused ---Trial Court rejected bail
application of accused person s on the grounds that alleged abductee was still in their custody;
that her Nikah was disputed and she had not been recovered, and that offence alleged fell
within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. ---Validity ---Alleged abductee recorded her
stateme nt on oath before the Magistrate, wherein she stated that she had voluntarily gone
with one of the accused and contracted valid marriage with him of her own choice ---Alleged
abductee negated the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. ---Magistrate allowed alle ged abductee
to go with her husband after recording her statement ---No case of abduction was made out
against accused persons and they were admitted to bail accordingly.
Ayaz Ali v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 31 and Muhammad Mateen v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 240
ref.
Mujeeb Ahmed Hashim and Khushal Khan Kasi for Applicants.
B.K. Marwat and Mehrullah Kakar for the Complainant.
Miss Sarwat Hina Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th December, 2012.
ORDER
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGA L, J. ---The applicants Muhammad Amin son of
Hazar Khan, Naik Muhammad son of Hazar Khan and Hazar Khan son of Gulzar Khan, seek
bail in case F.I.R. No.12 of 2012 registered with Levies Thana, Spera Ragha, District Ziarat
on 14th November, 2012 by complaina nt Musa Kaleem son of Mir Hazar under sections 365 -
B, 452, 496 -A, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. with the averments that he resides in Killi Zargai
and on 14th November, 2012 at 1 -00 a.m. the accused persons Allah Noor, Muhammad Noor
both sons of Muhammad Ramzan , Hazar Khan, Muhammad Ibrahim, Muhammad Amin sons
of Gulzar Khan, Naik Muhammad son of Hazar Khan and others equipped with deadly
weapons came to the house of complainant in two vehicles and forcibly abducted his sister
namely Bibi Aliza, who was married to Rahatullah son of Muhammad Zahir and she had
been taken away towards unknown place. Pursuant to such incident, F.I.R. was lodged
against the applicants along with other accused persons and they were arrested.
2. A bail application was moved before th e learned Additional Sessions Judge -IV,
Quetta, who after hearing the parties, rejected the same vide order dated 27th November,
2012, hence, this bail application.
3. Ms. Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi, learned counsel for the accused/applicants assisted by
Mr. Kh ushal Khan Kasi, Advocate has submitted that the accused/ applicants are innocent
and neither had they abducted the alleged abductee nor she was recovered from the
accused/applicants. He further contended that on 30th November, 2012 statement of Mst.
Aliza was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sibi on oath, wherein she categorically
stated that on 11th November, 2012 she at her own gone with Allah Noor and subsequently
she with her own consent and free will contracted a valid marriage with him, thus in such
circumstances, benefit of doubt may be extended to the applicants for purpose of bail.
Learned counsel for the accused/applicants has placed reliance on the case -laws as reported
in 2005 PCr.LJ 31 (Ayeaz Ali v. State) and 2005 PCr.LJ 240 (Muhammad Mateen v.
State).
4. On the other hand Messrs B.K. Marwat and Mehrullah Khan, Advocates appearing on
behalf of the complainant have opposed the bail application and has submitted that the
accused/applicants are nominated in the F.I.R. w ith specific role, as such, they are not entitled
to bail. He lastly prayed that the bail application may be dismissed.
5. Miss Sarwat Hina, learned Additional Prosecutor -General has strongly opposed the
grant of bail. She stated that the eye -witnesses namely Wakeel Ahmed and Muhammad
Younus have implicated the accused/applicants in their statements recorded under section
161, Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused
the record of the case minu tely. It may be observed here that merely bail has been rejected on
the grounds that abductee namely Bibi Aliza is still in the custody of Allah Noor and other
applicants and the Nikkah of Aliza with Allah Noor is disputed at this stage and the alleged
offences fall within prohibitory clause and abductee has not been recovered. No doubt the
accused/applicants are nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific role of abduction. It is an
admitted position that the abductee appeared before the Judicial Magistrate , Sibi on 30th
November, 2012 and in her statement recorded on oath she had stated that she had voluntarily
gone with Allah Noor and claimed to have contracted a valid marriage of her own choice
with Allah Noor. She also negates the allegations levelled i n the F.I.R. by her brother. She
expressly stated that she was neither taken away by force nor she had solemnized any Nikkah
with any one else. This is also matter of record that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sibi after
recording the statement of allege d abductee, allowed her with her husband.
7. Keeping in view the statement of alleged abductee, I am of the view that no case of
abduction is made out against the accused/applicant, as such, they are entitled to be released
on bail. Accordingly, this bai l application is allowed and the accused/applicants are admitted
on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees, one lac) each and P.R.
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. Application stands disposed of in the above terms.
MWA/11/Q Bail granted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.