2005 PLP 856 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979). Ss.10/11‑‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑‑Accused was named in F.I. R. and he had been attributed a specific role of abduction of victim‑‑ Alleged abductee in her statement got recorded under S.164, Cr. P. C. had implicated accused in commission of offence‑‑‑Alleged abductee had stated that accused had been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her against her consent and that accused also got her thumb‑impression on blank papers under duress and coercion‑‑ Offences under Ss. 10/11 of Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 were heinous offences, which fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C.‑‑‑Police during investigation had found accused guilty of offence‑‑‑Accused did not deserve concession of bail‑‑‑Petition for grant of bail, was dismissed in limine. Haider Zaman Khan for Petitioner. Instant petition for post‑arrest bail has been moved in case F.I.R. No.236 of 2004 dated 2‑4‑2004 registered under sections 10/11 Offences of Zina (Enforce ment of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station, Mughalpura District, Lahore on the complaint of Muhammad Jameel brother of victim Mst. Mehwish.

2. According to the story narrated in the F.I.R. Khalid Iqbal accused/petitioner used to come in the house of the complainant and in the meantime he developed illicit relations with Mst. Mehwish. When this fact came into the knowledge of the complainant side the accused was allegedly forbidden to come to their house. On 30‑3‑2004 when said Mst. Mehwish victim did not come back to the house from school, on inquiry it transpired that she was abducted by the accused/ petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Accordingly the ahductee was recovered and the accused/petitioner was arrested in the case. He applied for his bail after arrest, which was dismissed vide order dated 25‑11‑2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on the ground that the petitioner/accused is nominated in the F.I. R. He has been attributed a specific role of abduction of the victim and statement of the abductee was got recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein she has implicated the accused/ petitioner in the commission of offence under sections 10/11 Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII, 1979. Through her statement she has stated that accused/petitioner has been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her against her consent and she also got her thumb‑impression on blank papers under duress and coercion.

4. As the offences under sections 10/11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 are heinous' offences, which fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the police during the investigation has found the petitioner guilty so, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage. Instant petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./K‑78/L Petition dismissed.