2001 P Cr (PLP)

Aftab Raheem for Petitioners. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 20th September, 2000. Through this petition Ghularn Abbas alias Koni, Imdad Ali alias Dadu and Madad Ali petitioners have sought post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 33 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh on 25‑1‑2000 for an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of 10/11 days. Mst. Shafiqa Bibi, the alleged abductee, had not been recovered from the custody of the petitioners and as a matter of fact she had‑ been produced before the Investigating Officer by somebody not connected with the present case. Mst. Shafiqa Bibi, the alleged abductee, had stayed with the present petitioners for about one month and ten days without raising any protest and during this period she had been travelling with the petitioners from place to place. In her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. the alleged abductee had not levelled any allegation of commission of Zina with her by anybody. No statement of the said Mst. Shafiqa Bihi under section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded in this case. During her stay with the present petitioners the alleged abductee had filed a private complaint against her father, the complainant of this case, which fact prima facie supports the petitioners' stand that the said alleged abductee had in fact not been abducted by anybody and that she had gone with the present petitioners of her own free‑will and volition. A serious plea of valid Nikah of Ghulam Abbas petitioner No. 1 with the alleged abductee namely Mst. Shafiqa Bibi has been taken during the investigation of this case which is being countered by the complainant party with an allegation that Mst. Shafiqa Bibi had in fact contracted Nikah with one Abdul Latif on 26‑10‑1999. As to which of these two Nikahs is valid and genuine shall depend on the evidence to be led during the trial of the main case or before a Family Court. It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners have a history of involvement in criminal cases and, therefore, they do not deserve to be admitted to bail. In this context the Police Officer present with the record has remained unable to show as to whether the petitioners had ever been convicted in any criminal case or not. It goes without saying that an accused person in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a Court of law.

3. For, what has been discussed above the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./G‑71/L Bail allowed.