2002 PLP 3684 (YLR)

Muhammad Ramzan Watto for Petitioner. M. Iftikhar Shah for the Complainant. M. Aslam Malik for the State. Asif Ayub son of Muhammad Ayub petitioner seeks after‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 110 of 2001 dated 29‑5‑2001 registered under section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which was subsequently altered to section 452, P.P.C. got registered by Mst. Sarayya Begum with the allegation that during the night fallen between 27/28‑5‑2001 the complainant alongwith her other family members including her husband and son were sleeping in the courtyard of their house when at about 2‑30 a.m. the petitioner armed with pistol trespassed into their house and committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her on pistol point. She raised hue and cry, on which her husband Muhammad Nawaz and son Irfan tried to apprehend the petitioner and they saw two other persons namely Saleem Raza and Ayub, father of the petitioner were also present in the courtyard but the accused made their escape good while making a serial firing. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the investigation it was found that the petitioner had not committed Zina with the complainant and the offence under section 10 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance was deleted and during the investigation conducted by D.S.P. It was found that he only trespassed into the house and neither he committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr nor attempted to commit the same; that the alleged offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause and the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail. Conversely, the bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the State. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the petitioner is also involved in as many as eight cases of similar nature and he is desperate criminal, therefore, is not entitled for concession of bail. Heard. Record perused. The offence under section 10 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance has been deleted and now the petitioner has been challaned only under section 452, P.P.C. in which the maximum sentence provided undo the law is seven years and does not fall under the prohibitory clause. He was arrested on 31‑5‑2001 and is in continuous incarceration. The challan of the case has already been submitted but so far the trial has not commenced and there is no likelihood for early commencement/conclusion of the trial and the petitioner cannot be kept in judicial lock‑up for an indefinite period, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A‑641/L Bail granted.