2002 PLP 1125 (MLD)

S.497(1)

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10(2)/11

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380

Bail, grant of

Allegation against accused according to F.I.R. was that he had abducted the lady but during investigation it had been established that accused, after divorcing his previous wife, had contracted marriage with the alleged abductee three days prior to said abduction

Both accused and alleged abductee had consistently maintained that they had duly contracted marriage with each other

No stolen property was recovered from the possession of accused during investigation

Challan had already been submitted and physical custody of accused was no longer required for purpose of investigation

Co-accused, being a woman, her case attracted provisions of first proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Accused were admitted to bail. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners Arshad Ali Chohan for the State. Date of hearing: 12th November, 2001 Through this petition Gulzar Ahmad and Mst. Robina petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 138 registered at Police Station City, Pakpattan Sharif on 23-4-2001 for offence under sections 10(2)/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 380, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that according to the F.I.R. Gulzar Ahmad petitioner No. 1 had abducted/enticed away Mst. Robina petitioner No. 2 on 18-4-2001 but during the investigation it had been i established that on 30-3-2001 Gulzar Ahmad petitioner No. 1 had divorced his previous wife namely Mst. Nasreen Akhtar (Sister of Mst. Robina petitioner No. 2) and had then contracted Nikah with Mst. Robina petitioner No.2 on 15-4-2001 i.e. three days prior to the alleged abduction. This sequence of events surely renders the prosecution's allegation levelled in the F. I. R. to be prima facie doubtful. Both the present petitioners have consistently maintained that they have duly contracted marriage with each other after petitioner No. 1 had divorced his previous wife. It is not disputed that no stolen property was recovered from the petitioners' possession during the investigation. The challan in this case has already been submitted and, thus, physical custody of the petitioners is no longer required for the purposes of investigation. Petitioner No.2 is a woman and her case attracts the provisions of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

3. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each which two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./G-164/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.