2002 PLP 3550 (YLR)

Muhammad Anwarul Haq for the State. Date of hearing: 29th March, 2001. The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No.448 of 2000, dated 23‑12‑2000 for an offence under sections 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 registered at Police Station Burj Wala, Sahiwal.

2. According to the F.I.R the complainant Mst. Faizan Bibi stated that her husband earns livelihood by labour and that on 17‑12‑2000 Mst. Safia Bibi came to her home and asked her that she had to go to the shrine of Hafiz Daim for bringing Taveez so she should accompany her on which the complainant and her husband Noor Muhammad, Ramzan and Lal also accompanied her and when they reached Katchi Pacci road a while coloured car was parked there and three persons were sitting in it and when they reached near the car Zafar Iqbal armed with .222 bore rifle, Sabir armed with .30 bore pistol and Ghulam Rasool Chishti armed with rifle .222 bore forcibly on Pistol‑point caught her and boarded her in the car and asked Mst. Safia Bibi for going back as their mission had completed and the complainant's husband and Ramzan due to did not come forward and the accused took her after abducting to an unknown place a deserted shop Zafar Iqbal, Sabir and Ghulam Rasool Zina with the complainant and after two days the accused handed over her to other unknown persons who also remained committing Zina for two days and frightened her that If she will make noise she would be killed and that the complainant having a chance slipped away and from outside inquired about the place which was Marlay Chowk, Qaboola and the complainant after boarding a bus came to the house and narrated the whole incident and that the accused after abducting her remained committing Zina and that the motive in this incident is that the complainant owns 6/4 Acres of land which the accused were desirous of getting mutated from her name, for getting her agricultural land they had committed Zina.

3. Earlier the bail was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which was dismissed on 22‑2‑2001 with the observation that the main accused have not been arrested and it seemed that the Investigating Officer is playing with the file of the case because according to Police Diary No. 6, dated 29‑1‑2001 he found the petitioner Allah Bakhsh as guilty and formally arrested him who was committed to judicial custody but according to Police Diary No. 8, dated 15‑2‑2001, he observed otherwise which reflected that he was not going to conduct the investigation impartially or extending helping hand to the accused persons.

4. Now the bail is pressed on the grounds that there is an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R. and how strange it is that the complainant Mst. Faizan Bibi was abducted allegedly on Pistol‑point by Zafar Iqbal, Sabir and Ghulam Rasool Chishti in view of the husband of victim Mst. Faizan Bibi and he did not record F.I.R. for six days and Mst. Faizan Bibi as has been alleged from her in the F.I.R. after four days slipped away and came to her house and narrated the incident to .her husband and herself got recorded the F.I.R. and this concocted story itself shows it is a false case and that neither the petitioner has been attributed abduction of the victim nor of commission of Zina and that even according to the F.I.R. the petitioner was not armed with any weapon and that no description of the petitioner has been mentioned to the police, and that no identification parade was even held and that the petitioner has been involved in this case only being a friend of Ghulam Rasool Chishti otherwise the petitioner has no concern whatsoever either with the abduction of the victim or with the commission of Zina with her and that there is no very witness of the alleged abduction or of the commission of Zina with the victim by the petitioner and that the victim is a married woman and according to the M.L.R. no injury supporting the commission of Zina and that the alleged motive of getting agricultural land mutated from the name of the complainant is also not attributable to the petitioner and that reasoning of the learned Judge that the main accused have not so far been arrested is not a justification for refusing bail to the petitioner and that during an investigation the petitioner has been found innocent and that the petitioner cannot be penalized for not conducting impartial investigation by the Investigating Officer and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about two months and no more required by the police for further investigation and that so far no challan has been submitted in the Trial Court and that the petitioner is previously non‑convict and belongs to respectable family and that the matter needs further inquiry.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and supported the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.

6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.

7. Admittedly, there is a delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R. and petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. nor attribution o abduction is made against him nor there is any allegation of commission of Zina and that even according to the F.I.R. he was no armed with any weapon and the medico‑legal report is also contradictory with the allegations, this make the case that of further probe as such, the bail is granted to the petitioner subject to his furnishing the bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the, Trial Court. H.B.T./A‑644/L Bail granted.