1988 P Cr (PLP)

M.A. Hameed Awan for Petitioner. Rana Ahmad Saeed for the State. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Sajjad Hussain petitioner, who is involved in a case under Articles 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Article 14 of Ordinance VI of 1979.

2. The prosecution version is that 4/5 months prior to the registration of the case, the petitioner and his co‑accused Ahmad Bakhsh, Allah Bakhsh, Ghulam Mohyuddin, Allah Wasaya and Nazir Ahmad stayed for the night as guests at the house of Faiz Bakhsh complainant. On the following morning after serving them breakfast he left for doing labour. When he returned in the evening, he found that his house was locked. He was informed by his neighbours that his wife had gone with the guests. On checking the household effects, he found that a tape‑recorder, clothes and Rs.2,000 in cash were missing. He searched for his wife and the accused persons, but they could not be traced. Ultimately, he came to know that the aforesaid accused persons were keeping her at a place known as 'Shah the Khooi' for illicit purposes. Consequently, he reported the occurrence to police on 18‑9‑1987.

3. The statement of Mst. Kaneez Mai was recorded by a Magistrate on 21‑9‑1987 wherein she alleged that the aforementioned persons induced her to accompany them for paying homage at the shrine of Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhsh. She accompanied them to the shrine from where they took her to 'Shah the Khooi' in the house of Sajjad Hussain petitioner who got a house on rent, where all the accused had been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. has been lodged with an unexplained delay of five months, the solitary statement of the prosecutrix cannot link the petitioner with the commission of offence and the contents of the suit instituted by her falsify her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained in the F.I.R. itself, which shows that the complainant had been searching for his wife and the abductors but they could not be traced and as soon as he learnt about their whereabouts, he lodged the report. Mst. Kaneez Mai is a married woman. She is not shown to have any motive against the petitioner for false implication. The mere fact that the contents of the plaint in the suit for dissolution of marriage were different from her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. would hardly constitute any ground for the grant of bail. The reason is that at the time of lodging the suit for dissolution of marriage Mst. Kaneez Mai was in the custody of the abductors. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage. The petition is dismissed. S.A./S‑139/L Bail refused.