1986 P Cr (PLP)

Hafiz Muhammad Saeed for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Asghar petitioner in a case under section 10 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 302/201, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Macleod Ganj, vide F.I.R. No. 116/83.

2. The prosecution case is that Muhammad Asghar petitioner enticed away Mat. Siddiqan in order to have sexual intercourse with her and that as a result of the illicit relations between him and the abductee, a female child was born 7 days before the registration of the case and that they subsequently murdered the illegitimate child by drowning.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far the offence under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 there is a delay of about one year in lodging the F.I.R. and that there is no direct evidence of the commission of Zina by the petitioner with Mat. Siddiqan co‑accused. So far as offences under section 302/201, P.P.C. are concerned, the learned counsel stated that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the murder and that offence under section 201, P.P.C. is bailable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the plea for bail of the petitioner. He, however, frankly admitted that the police has failed to collect any direct or indirect evidence of the murder of unnamed /unknown child by the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that according to post‑mortem report unnamed female child died as a result of drowning; that there is no evidence, whatsoever, to connect the petitioner with the murder of that child; that the petitioner is in jail for the last about 8 months and the challan has not been submitted so far and that the incident of enticing away of Mat. Siddiqan by the petitioner was reported after one year of the occurrence.

5. For what has been found above, without making any expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the view that the question of the guilt of the petitioner requires further enquiry within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. He is allowed) bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Minchanabad.

6. Before parting with the order I would like to add that from the remand /adjournment orders placed on record, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner, Minchanabad has flouted the guideline given by this Court for the grant of remand/adjournment in case reported as 1984 P Cr. L J 2588. Let a separate file on criminal original side be opened and the learned Assistant Commissioner be directed to appear before the Court on 2‑9‑1984 to show cause why contempt proceedings be riot initiated against him. S.A. Bail granted.