2007 PLP 357 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this petition the petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.148 dated 10-5-2006 for offences under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Malka Haans District Pakpattan.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners along with other co-accused are alleged to have abducted Mst. Najma Bibi, daughter of the complainant and had also committed Zina with her.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was delay of 5/6 days in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been explained; that Mst. Najma Bibi, the alleged abductee, in her statement made on 20-5-2006 stated that she had not been abducted and that she had left the house of her husband voluntarily; that the provisions of section 16 of the Ordinance were not attracted to the case of the petitioner; that since the offence related to Zina, as such the same should have been-investigated by the S.P. (Investigation). However, the same was investigated by the D.S.P. (Investigation) but verified by the S.P. (Investigation) as such was against the law, hence, the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the father of the abductee had lodged the F.I.R. but no mala fides to falsely implicate the petitioners have been alleged against him. Two investigations were conducted and in both the .said investigations the petitioners were found to be fully involved in the case; that the abduction of Mst. Najma Bibi was witnessed by two persons namely Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Irshad who had got their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Two other witnesses namely Muhammad Afzal and Abdul Khaliq had witnessed the commission of Zina and in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. had fully implicated the petitioners; that the suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by the said Mst. Najma Bibi against her husband on 22-5-2006 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 5-5-2006-which shows that the said suit was filed during the time when she was in the custody of the petitioner and that since the offence under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was hit by the prohibitory clause as such the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R. and have been ascribed the role of abduction of Mst. Najma Bibi on gun point and of committing Zina with her. Two investigations were conducted, one by the Sub-Inspector and the other by the S.P. (Investigation) and in both the investigations the petitioners were found to be fully implicated in the case. Four independent witnesses have appeared before the Investigating Officers and got their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. in support of the prosecution case, thus further connecting the petitioners with the commission of crimes alleged against them. In such-like cases delay of few days in lodging of the F.I.R. is of no consequence. Pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pakpattan Sharif on 30-6-2006 and the order reveals that the petitioners failed to appear before the Court on the said date. Thus the petitioners have misused the concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail granted by the learned lower Court. The offence under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The record does not reveal and mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police for false involvement of the petitioners. A tentative assessment of the evidence reveals that there is ample evidence on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offences alleged against them.

7. Resultantly, the petition being without any merit is dismissed. The ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners on 13-7-2006 is recalled. S.M.B./L-20/L Bail cancelled.