1994 PLP 475 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Young adult educated girl who had appeared for interview in the Airlines Office where she qualified and was medically tested for fitness for service as an airhostess was alleged to have been abducted by accused‑‑‑Question was whether alleged abductee had contracted marriage and had gone with the accused of her own free will‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal in circumstances and the accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Ms. Hina Jillani, Advocate and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate for the State. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned fudge in Chambers of the High Court whereby his bail application was rejected. .

2. The petitioner has been challaned on the basis of F.I.R. No. 164/1992 dated 4‑9‑1992 under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The allegation against him is that he abducted Mst. Shumaila Gul daughter of the complainant for the purpose of committing Zina with her. It has been alleged that he took away Mst. Shumaila deceitfully on the pretext of getting her employment with PIA. It is alleged that he had taken her to Rawalpindi where she appeared for interview and after that she was forced to sign certain documents and papers and was confined and further that rape was committed forcibly by the petitioner. The petitioner's plea was that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of five months without affording any proper explanation. It was also stated that Mst. Shumaila Gul had gone with the petitioner of her own free will and contracted marriage at Rawalpindi. A Nikahnama was also produced. Reliance was also placed on the statement she had made before a Magistrate and the lady DSP, Police Centre at Lahore that she had contracted marriage with the petitioner and wanted to live with him. This statement is alleged to be under coercion and not voluntary. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore granted bail, but it was cancelled by the learned Judge in Chambers by order dated 28‑4‑1993 and a further application for grant for bail was also dismissed on 31‑5‑1993.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner notice was issued to the State. The learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail. Ms. Hina Jillani, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although Mst. Shumaila Gul's father was aware that his daughter was seen moving about with the petitioner, no report was lodged for five months and the delay has not been explained in a proper manner as the alleged search was not necessary in view of the information he had from the P.Ws. She also referred to the documents produced to substantiate that Mst. Shumaila Gul had married the petitioner of her own free will and that such statement was also recorded before the Magistrate and the police officer and if there would have been any coercion at least at that time she could have mentioned all these facts. According to her the entire story and statement of Mst. Shumaila Gull made now was procured under coercion by the prosecution. The undisputed facts are that Mst. Shumaila Gul is a young adult educated girl. She is a graduate and from documents produced it seems that she had appeared for interview in the office of PIA where she qualified and was medically tested for fitness for service as an airhostess. In this background and in view of the documentary evidence produced at this stage the question would arise whether she had contracted marriage and had gone with the petitioner of her own free will. In these circumstances, in our view the petitioner should have been allowed bail. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and allow it. The impugned orders are set aside and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to the petitioner is restored. N.H.Q./A‑1067/S Bail allowed.