2007 P Cr (PLP)

SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.87, dated 12-11-2005 registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 at Police Station Kotli Sattian, District Rawalpindi.

2. Briefly stated the facts as recorded in the F.I.R. on the statement of Mubarik Jan the complainant are that the petitioner-accused abducted Mst. Sadia Bibi aged 22 years on the night in between 9/10-11-2005 at about 1-00 a.m. for committing Zina with her.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been involved in the case falsely and in fact the' victim herself did not want to marry one Israr Ahmad and on the date fixed for the marriage, she herself ran away from the house of her parents and thereafter with their consent married with Afzal on 27-11-2005. It is further contended that actually the marriage between Afzaal and Sadia Bibi was solemnized on 13-11-2005 and that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner and according to the statement of the abductee that two unknown ladies asked her to marry with the petitioner is not corroborated by any further piece of evidence and that the abductee was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner; that the petitioner is behind the bar for the last eight months and is no more required for further investigation.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the counsel for the complainant opposed this petition and contended that the petitioner has abducted the victim and is not entitled for bail. It is further submitted that the challan has been submitted in the Court and the trial has commenced.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the abductee did not happy of her marriage with said Israr, therefore, she herself left her house and contracted marriage with one Afzaal on 13th of November, 2005 (marriage with Afzaal is not disputed by the complainant), has some force and worth to be considered. The alleged abductee has not even alleged in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner compelled her to enter into a contract of marriage with him. There is no allegation of Zina or attempt of Zina against the petitioner. At present there is no corroboration of statement of the abductee. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, when no Zina was committed nor she was forced to enter into a contract of marriage and subsequent marriage with Afzaal instead of Israr, coupled with the A fact that she was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner but she herself carne back to her house before the arrest of the petitioner, there exists reasonable ground to make out a case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation. To keep him behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose. 6-A. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within two months positively. In case delay in trial is caused due to the conduct of the petitioner, the prosecution or the complainant would be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. H.B.T./A-195/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.