2003 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner has sought for post‑arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.258, dated 17‑11‑2002 originally registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No. VII of 1979 with Police Station Thingi, District Vehari. Later on, the police have added section 10(2) of the same in it.

2. The facts of the case were mentioned .by me in the order, dated 25‑3‑2003 recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.226/B of 2003 titled Muhammad Altaf v. The State. The same, therefore, are not repeated here.

3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in that the alleged abductee Mst. Riffat Perveen is his legally‑wedded wife; that their Nikah was performed on 18‑9‑2002 and the same was prior to the alleged incident that now she has been arrayed as an accused in the case being consenting party to Zina that she has been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari; that she has mentioned in her bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari that she is his legally‑wedded wife and has disowned her alleged Nikah with Muhammad Yasin; that she has denied the story of her forcible abduction; that she had also brought Writ Petition bearing No.8773 of 2002 against the complainant and others and in the same has prayed for restraining the S.H.O. concerned to harass her and to interfere in her matrimonial life and this has negated the story of the complainant; and that he is behind the bars and is previous non‑convict.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he alongwith his co‑accused had forcibly abducted Mst. Riffat Parveen for Zina and thereafter had been committing with her Zina‑bil‑Raza.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

6. According to the complainant's version as mentioned in the F.I.R. accused alongwith his co‑accused had forcibly' abducted his daughter Mst. Riffat Parveen aged about 17/18 years, for Zina. She now has been arrayed as an accused in the instant case being consenting party to Zina. She had applied for bail before the learned Sessions Court, Vehari. In the same she has pleaded that she is his (petitioner) legally wedded wife and her Nikah with Muhammad Yasin had never been performed. She has also mentioned in the same that her suit for jactitation of marriage against him (Muhammad Yasin) is pending before the competent Family Court at Multan. She has been allowed bail by Mr. Muhammad Saleem Akhtar Khan, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari vide his order, dated 7‑5‑2003 with the observation that in view of two versions, her case certainly needs further inquiry into her guilt. It may also be mentioned here that she on 17‑11‑2002 has made statement before the Superintendent Darul Aman, Multan to the effect that she is legally‑wedded wife of Muhammad Ramzan (petitioner) and disowned her, Nikah with said Muhammad Yasin.

7. In view of his plea of valid marriage with her, it is yet to be seen that if he ultimately can be held liable for her alleged forcible abduction or enticement or Zina‑bil‑Raza with her. Hence, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt.

8. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non‑convict.

9. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑2012/L Bail granted.