1
Judgment Sheet
IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,
PESHAWAR.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Cr.M B.A No.918-P/2014
TITLE.
Farman Ali ……….vs………..The State.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing_________21.07.2014________________
Appellant(by)____________________________________
Respondent(by)__________________________________
MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J:- Petitioner
Farman Ali seeks post arrest bail in case FIR
No.432 dated 16.07.2012 registered u/s 365-B
PPC, Police Station Urmar, Peshawar.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as emerged
out of FIR is that initially the complainant lodged
report about missing of his wife Mst: Shagufta,
who left the house for visiting a Doctor but
lateron she did not turned, thus his report was
entered vide Mad No.21 dated 03.07.2012 and
during inquiry u/s 156(3) Cr.PC complainant
recorded his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, charging
therein the petitioner for commission of offence.
Consequently instant FIR was registered against
the accused.
2
3. Lateron after recovery, the abductee also
recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, charging
thterein the petitioner for kidnapping and illegally
confining her.
Arguments heard, record perused.
4. The petitioner is not directly charged by
the complainant in his report for commission of
offence rather he was charged lateron by the
complainant in his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. The
mode of occurrence, as narrated by husband of
the abductee and lateron, by the abductee
herself in her statement recorded under section
164 Cr.P.C is indicative of the fact that she
herself left the house at her own accord. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner
has abducted Mst.Shagufta or compelled her for
marriage, etc without her consent. The abductete
has not mentioned in her statement u/s 164
Cr.PC about compelling her for marriage or illicit
intercourse etc, by the petitioner rather she
charged him only for illegal confinement, which
offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause
of Section 497 Cr.PC. The abductee has also not
been medically examined as to whether any zina/
illicit intercourse has been committed with her or
3
not, which makes the case of petitioner that of
further inquiry. Section 365-B PPC signifies the
carrying away of a woman by any means with an
aim that she may be compelled to marriage or
forced or made to illicit intercourse, against her
will. The plain reading of the section indicates
two main components and ingredients of the
offence, firstly, there must be kidnapping or
abduction of a woman, and secondly, the first act
of abduction and kidnapping, must be with intent
that she may be compelled to marriage or be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. In the
instant case all the above said elements are
missing.
5. So far as long absconcion of petitioner is
concerned, as per settled principles,
abscondance by itself is no ground for refusal of
bail, when otherwise the case for bail is made out
on merits. Though the offence is heinous in
nature but mere fact that the petitioner is charged
for a heinous offence would not hamper in the
way of bail, if otherwise, he has made out a case
of bail on merits. The petitioner despite
remaining in police custody, has made no
confession before the competent Court nor the
4
abductee has been recovered by the local police
from his possession, which makes the case of
petitioner that of further inquiry.
In view of what has been discussed
above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner
is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail
bonds to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lac)
with two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction trial Court concerned, who shall
ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and
men of means.
These are the reasons of my short
order of even date.
Announced.
Dt.21.07.2014.
J U D G E
