1992 P Cr (PLP)

Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioners. Muhammad Akram Khan for the State. Muhammad Aslam Buttar for the Complainant. Muhammad Anwar, Mahboob, Allah Rakha and Allah Ditta seek their bail before arrest in a case registered against them under section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Wandho District Gujranwala vide F.I.R. No.243 dated 12th September, 1991 by moving this petition before this Court.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the prosecutrix, Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar; has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband before the learned Judge Family Court which is still pending adjudication. It is argued that it is a case of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. An objection has been raised by learned counsel for the State that the petitioners did not move the learned trial Court for the grant of bail relief to them:

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have read the record. The petitioners, Muhammad Anwar, Mahboob, Allah Rakha and Allah Ditta are named as accused persons in the F.I.R. with specific roles in the commission of the crime. They were. also allegedly armed with lethal weapons. They abducted Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar alongwith Shawar‑ul -Hassan (13 years), Zakia Bibi (10 years) and Sahar Mahmood. (4 years) on 2‑8‑1991. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure `B', a statement made by Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar in a complaint case under section 5(0/506, P.P.C. Annexure `D' is an earlier order having been passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8212 of 1991. The effect of Annexure `B' and Annexure `D' would be determined by the learned trial Judge after hearing the parties. The allegations levelled by Syed Ijaz Masood, the complainant, against accused shall also be dealt with by the concerned Court. Be that as it may, I have not been pursuaded to entertain the bail petition of the petitioners straightaway. The learned counsel for the State, however, has no objection if some time is allowed to the petitioners to enable them to move petition for bail before arrest before the trial Court. In the circumstances, 15 days are allowed to the petitioners to enable them to move a' petition for bail before arrest before the competent Court. They are, therefore, I admitted to ad interim pre‑arrest bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties I each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura for a period of only 15 days. This order shall automatically lapse on 18‑11‑1991. This petition stands disposed of. The learned lower Court shall pass an order on the bail petition of the petitioners, if moved, treating this order as non‑existent. N.H.Q./M‑392/L Interim pre‑arrest bail allowed.