1989 PLP 4171 (MLD)

Petitioner seeks bail in the case registered against him and others under Section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Gulberg, Lahore on the application of Daula father of Mst. Parveen.

2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner and Mst. Parveen had developed illicit relations; that on the day of occurrence Mst. Zarina co‑accused of the petitioner had taken the abductee from her house where of the petitioner, Nura Mashi, Liaquat, Sheem Masih and Mst. Sheeman wife of Liaquat joined them. On recovery Mst. Parveen made statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she alleged that Mst. Zarina, Mst. Sheeman wife of Liaquat and Mst. Kukki wife of Channa (petitioner) had come to their house and had taken her to the bazar and then to an open place where Liaquat David and Channa Masih (petitioner) were standing near a Pick‑up. She was then forcibly put in the Pick up and taken to different places under pistol point. She stated that she was kept in two places where all the three committed zina with her.

3. Bail is being sought by the petitioner on the grounds that although the abductee in this case was recovered on 11‑10‑1988 yet her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded till 23‑10‑1988 and she was got medically examined a day thereafter. Learned counsel submits that the statement made by her obviously was under the influence of her parents. Bail is also being sought on the ground of consistency. In that learned counsel submitted that Liaquat co‑accused of the petitioner against whom similar allegations about abduction and Zina have been levelled, was allowed pre‑acres" bail by the Sessions Judge. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the abductee was recovered on 11‑10‑1988 but her statement was not recorded till 23‑10‑1988, is not denied by learned counsel for the State nor the fact of the abductee having been medically examined a day after recording her statement, is refuted. This is also a fact that Liaquat co‑accused had taken part in the abduction and had committed Zina with the abductee as stated by her before the Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge while admitting Liaquat accused to bail did not make our plausible distinction between the case of the petitioner and Liaquat accused. The only difference he found was that according to the F I R the petitioner had developed illicit relations with the abductee but that by itself should not have been a reason to refuse him the concession of bail. Be that as it may, the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that rule of consistency demands treatment at par, bears force. The fact also exists that the statement of abductee was recorded 13 days after her recovery and according to order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was not recorded during this period. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to allow this petition. The petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. Twenty thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Model Town Lahore. M.Y.H./C‑44/L. Bail granted.