2002 PLP 1120 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, (VII of 1979), Ss.10/16‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Complainant party had knowledge about illicit liaison of accused with alleged abductee and both of them were seen committing Zina about two months prior to the registration of case, but no report was lodged with police and even after her abduction F.I.R. was lodged after delay of eleven days‑‑‑Such delay in lodging F.I.R. itself was sufficient to bring case of accused within fold of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused, at one stage, during the investigation was found innocent and case against him was recommended for cancellation‑‑‑Alleged abductee made two statements, one before police under S.161, Cr.P.C. and other before Magistrate under S.164, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Stories narrated in both statements were contradictory to each other‑‑‑Case of accused being of further inquiry he was admitted to bail. Ch. Ahmad Saif Ullah Khatana for Petitioner. Naseer Ahmad Baloch for the State. Petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 419 of 2000, dated 25‑7‑2000 under sections 10/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No. VII of 1979 registered at Police Station Bhawana District, Jhang. The precise allegation against the petitioner as penned in the F.I.R. is that he had illicit relations with Mst. Noor Bakht. Statedly, two months prior to the registration of instant case, both of them were seen committing Zina. Allegedly, on the night between 13/14‑7‑2000 when the inmates of the house were asleep. Mst. Noor Bakhsh was abducted by the petitioner alongwith other co‑accused for the purpose of illicit fornication.

2. During the investigation, petitioner was taken into custody in this case on 15‑6‑2001 and his post‑arrest bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot vide order dated 6‑11‑2001 hence this petition.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has been observed that the complainant party had the knowledge about the illicit liaison of the petitioner with Mst. Noor Bakht Statedly both of them were seen committing Zina about two months prior to the registration of this case. It is strange that no report was lodged with the police so much so even after the‑abduction of Mst. Noor Bakht report with the police was lodged after the delay or eleven days. In the circumstances of this case, delay in lodging the F.I.R. is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the fold or further inquiry. Even otherwise, at one stage during the investigation S.H.O. and S.P. concerned petitioner was found innocent and against him was recommended for its cancellation. It is also apparent from the record that Mst. Noor Bakht made two statements, one before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. and the other before the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. The stories narrated in both the statements are contradictory to each other. In this view of the matter, finding the case of the petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the time of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. H.B.T./A‑462/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.