Alleged abductee solemnized Nikkah with son of petitioner and in that age has been mentioned as about 17/18 years, she has sworn an affidavit to effect that she has willingly entered into Nikkah,

PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 236

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 364/34--Allegation of abduction--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Valid nikah--Diverse statement of abductee--Further inquiry--Alleged abductee solemnized Nikkah with son of petitioner and in that age has been mentioned as about 17/18 years, she has sworn an affidavit to effect that she has willingly entered into Nikkah, however, B form produced on record shows that age of abductee is 12 years approximately; she also made statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. that she was coerced to enter into Nikkah referred facts, made case against petitioner is one of further inquiry--Petition was allowed.

                                                                                              [P. 237] A

2018 PCr.LJ 453, 2018 MLD 899 and 2018 PCr.LJ 1025 ref.

Mr. Rifaqat Islam Awan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Shafqat Abbas Tarar, Advocate for Respondents.

Ch. Zaheer Farooq, learned State Counsel.

Date of hearing: 6.5.2019.

PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 236
Present: Aamer Farooq, J.
GHULAM MUSTAFA--Petitioner
versus
STATE & another--Respondents.
Crl. Misc. No. 218/B of 2019, decided on 6.5.2019.

Order

Through the instant petition, the petitioner Ghulam Mustafa, seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No. 74/19, dated 27.02.2019 for offence under Section 364/34, PPC, Police Station Lohi Bhair, Islamabad.

2. The case of prosecution, against the petitioner is that on the complaint of respondent No. 2, an FIR was registered in which it was alleged that the complainant is resident of Islamabad and on 26.02.2019 at about 07:50 a.m. the petitioner alongwith his co-accused kidnapped his daughter Irum Butt aged about 12 years.

3. The petitioner applied for bail after arrest before the Sessions Judge, East-Islamabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner's son contracted valid Nikkah, hence there was no abduction; that the alleged detenue made diverse statements, hence the same cannot be believed; that the investigation stands concluded. Reliance was placed on cases reported as "Zawar Hussain vs. The State and others" (2018 P Cr.LJ 453), "Muhammad Shahbaz vs. The State and another" (2018 P Cr.LJ 1025) and "Muhammad Biial vs. The State and another" (2018 MLD 899).

5. Learned State Counsel alongwith the counsel for the complainant, inter alia, contends that the alleged abductee is a minor; that the Nikkah, if any, is in violation of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.

6. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard and documents placed on record examined with their able assistance.

7. The post arrest bail of one of the co-accused of the petitioner namely Muzaffar Khan was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, East-Islamabad on 16.3.2019. The alleged abductee solemnized Nikkah with the son of the petitioner and in that the age has been mentioned as about 17/18 years, she has sworn an affidavit to the effect that she has willingly entered into Nikkah, however, the B form produced on record shows that the age of abductee is 12 years approximately; she also made statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. that she was coerced to enter into Nikkah. The referred facts, made the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry. Reliance is placed on cases reported as "Zawar Hussain vs. The State and others" (2018 PCr.LJ 453), "Muhammad Shahhaz vs. The State and another" (2018 PCr.LJ 1025), "Muhammad Bilal vs. The State and another" (2018 MLD 899) and "Muhammad Azam vs. The State and another" (2018 PCr.LJ Note 175).

8. In view of above, instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject- to furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one (01) surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the learned Trial Court at the time of trial.

(M.M.R.)         Petition allowed