2000 MLD 1233 (PLP)

Masood Hashmi for the Complainant. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 55 of 1999 under section 10(3)/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance at Police Station Kot Samaba, District Rahimyar Khari. 2. . The allegation against the petitioner is, that he alongwith others abducted the sister of the complainant and committed zina with her.

3. Earlier the petition for bail after arrest moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan vide his order, dated 10‑5‑1999. Hence his petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the alleged abductee is his legally wedded wife as is evident from copy of Nikahnama, dated 23‑3‑1997, that in her' statement recorded before a learned Magistrate in the proceedings of a private complaint filed against the complainant and others she not only negated the prosecution version but also acknowledged the petitioner as her husband; petitioner was earlier involved in a hudood case in respect of the present alleged the vide F.I.R. No.300 of 1997. However, he was acquitted after conclusion of the trial by the learned Trial Court; there is a delay of seven days in lodging the F.I.R.; petitioner is behind the bars for the last seven months and trial has not yet even been commenced; the other two accused have been declared innocent by the police and there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering with the

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State, vehemently opposed the bail petition on the ground that the alleged abductee, during the hearing of the bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan disowned her statement before the learned Magistrate and supported the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that no' doubt the alleged abductee has not filed any suit for jactitation of marriage against the petitioner but the concerned Union Council certified that no record of Nikah between her and the petitioner is available and the alleged abductee is now married with one Nadeem.

6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

7. There is no denial that in an earlier case registered against the petitioner in respect of the present alleged abductee, after the trial of the case, the learned Trial Court passed an order of acquittal; no suit for jactitation of marriage has been filed till today by the alleged abductee with regard to her Nikah with the petitioner despite the fact that the same had come to the knowledge of all the concerned parties during the earlier trial; statement made before the learned Magistrate by the alleged abductee; detention of the petitioner for the last‑ seven months without any progress in the trial so much so copies of the statements of the P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. have not yet been supplied, thus the case of the petitioner falls within the category of further inquiry. Support has been derived from the following judgments;. NLR 1996 SD 37; 1999 PCr.LJ 86; NLR 1988 SD

15. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnish his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Bail granted.