1986 P Cr (PLP)

Khalid Mahmood Sheikh for the State. Date of hearing: 12th April, 1986. Shaukat Ali petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Article 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. Article 10 of the aforesaid Ordinance was subsequently added.

2. The F.I.R. version is that on the morning of 12‑10‑1985 Mst. Farzana aged 16/17 years, daughter of Muhammad Sadiq complainant did not return from her school. The complainant searched for her and during the course he learnt that Shaukat Ali petitioner had taken her away. Mst. Farzana was recovered from Bus Stand Lahore, on 23‑10‑1985. On the same day she made a statement that the petitioner came to her school in a Rickshaw alongwith 2/3 other persons namely Mustaqeem and Javed and forcibly took her away to Baghbanpura where they committed Zina‑bil‑Jabar with her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there s unexplained delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. the statement of the alleged abductee and that of the complainant regarding allegation of abduction are at variance; except the bald statement of the abductee who is no better than an accomplice, there is no evidence regarding the commission of Zina and the report of the Chemical Examiner placed on the judicial file pertains to some other case. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bar.

4. I have gone through the record and given my careful consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The complainant is not an eye‑witness of the abduction. He stated the during the search he learnt that Mst. Farzana was taken away by Shaukat Ali petitioner. He further stated that Muhammad Sadiq and Bodhi P.Ws. had seen the petitioner taking her away. On the other hand, Mst. Farzana stated that Shaukat Ali was accompanied by 2 other persons and she named Javed and Mustaqeem as his companion: Thus the statements of the complainant and the abductee regarding the abductors are at variance. Mst. Farzana was medically examined, on 23‑10‑1985. No marks of violence were found‑on her body. Her hymen was torn and the tear was old. Two vaginal swabs were taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. In the medico‑legal report it was stated that opinion will be given after the receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner. The report placed on the judicial file pertains to the case of one Zarina daughter of Siddique. In the instant case, the swabs were taken on 23‑10‑1985 whereas the report of Chemical Examiner placed on the judicial file shows that the swabs were received in the office of the Chemical Examiner on 10th of October, 1985 meaning thereby that the same pertain to some other case. It is conceded that except Mst. Farzana there is no other witness of the commission of Zina. In the circumstances, a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. He is, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rs. Twenty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Sadar. S.A. Bail allowed.