2001 PLP 2830 (YLR)

Nadeem Asif for the State. The petitioners seek bail in case F.I.R. No. 118, of 2000 under sections 16/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station, Saddar, Chishtian.

2. Precisely Muhammad Akram complainant averted that three months ago his marriage with Mst. Azra Bibi was solemnized and Murtaza accused was on visiting terms and developed illicit relations with her. Later on the complainant prevented him not to visit his house. On 29‑5‑2000 he came in the house from his service; he found his wife missing. Thereafter, witness Muhammad Sohail and Riazul Hassan informed him that his wife alongwith Murtaza, Mumtaz Ahmad, Mian alias Paryad, Muhammad Ashraf. Talib Hussain was seen by them while boarding in the vehicle. He also found gold ornament weighing two tolas, Rs. 2,000 and clothes missing. Accused party promised to return his wife but later on refused to return her. The complainant further averred that accused have abducted his wife for Zina purpose.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the abudctee/Mst. Azra Bibi has not levelled any allegation of Zina against the petitioners; that the abductee was recovered from Darulaman, Lahore and she stated in her statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. that she was taken by her father from Darulaman and that the alleged abductee has instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage against complainant/her husband. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry, therefore, they are entitled for the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has emphatically opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and contended that the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have stated against the petitioners, levelling the allegation of abduction against them; and that the petitioners have been nominated in the F.I.R. as an accused person.

5. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. Admittedly, the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. but allegation of Zina against them is not made out from the contents of the F.I.R. The offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, is not punishable with death, life or 10 years' imprisonment, therefore, the case of the petitioners does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners are behind the bars since 18‑6‑2000 and no more required for further investigation by the police. The guilt of the petitioners is yet to be determined by the Court after recording the prosecution evidence, therefore, their case calls for further inquiry. Since the offence is not covered within the ambit of prohibitory clause, thus, in such circumstances, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is exception.

6. For the foregoing reasons, without prejudicing the merits of the case, this bail application is accepted. The petitioners shall be released on bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Ilaqa/ Judicial Magistrate concerned. H.B.T./T‑66/L Bail granted.