1987 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Further inquiry‑ ‑Prosecutrix put to threat at time of rape, explaining absence of marks of violence on her person‑ Husband of prosecutrix not eye‑witness, his affidavit exonerating accused, of no avail, rather supporting prosecution version of his estranged relations with prosecutrix‑‑Case of serious nature‑‑Mere fact that co‑accused was found innocent would not make case of accused a case of further enquiry‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Mian Ahmad Sher Lali for Petitioner. Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for the Complainant. Masoodul Hassan Sabri for the State. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Mohli who is being prosecuted in a case under section 10 Ordinance VII of 1979 for committing Zina with Mst. Shamim complainant. The prosecution case is that Mst. Shamim had started residing with her parents after estrangement of relations with her husband. On 29‑6‑1986 at about 1 p.m. Mst. Safia accused came to her house and asked her to accompany her to her house. When she went to the house of Safia, Mohli accused was present there. He locked her in a room and committed rape with her. She raised alarm which attracted Muhammad Siddique and Amir Ali P.Ws. The accused ran away. The police after registration of the case under took investigation and arrested the accused, In support of this petition it is contended firstly that Mst. Safia was found innocent and as such the case of petitioner becomes that of further enquiry. Secondly, that there was no mark of struggle on her person which belies the prosecution version and finally that Ashraf husband of Mst. Shamim has sworn an affidavit to support the innocence of the petitioner. I have considered these contentions. Mere fact that Mst. Safia was found innocent would not mean that the case against Mohli petitioner was that of further enquiry. It is in F.I.R. that Mst. Shamim was put to threat at the time of rape which explains the absence of any mark of struggle on her person. The affidavit of her husband is of no avail to the petitioner because he was not an eye‑witness. It rather proves the version of prosecution that Mst. Shamim was residing with her parents on account of estrangement of her relation with her husband. The case of petitioner is of serious nature. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. S.A./M‑179/L. Bail refused.