1986 P Cr (PLP)

C.M. Latif Rawn for Respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Date of hearing: 13th October, 1985. Mst. Rehana Kausar petitioner has moved this petition for cancellation of bail allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, to Irshad alias Shadda, Sultan and Ibrahim respondents in a case under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. At the preliminary hearing the learned counsel did not press the petition against Ibrahim respondent and notice was issued only to Irshad alias Shadda and Sultan respondents.

3. The case was registered on the report of the petitioner. In the F.I.R. she alleged that two years back her Nikah was performed with Ashiq Hussain but Rukhsati had not taken place and she continued residing in the house of her parents. About 22/23 days back when she was alone in the house, Mst. Musarrat called her in the street. As soon as she came out Irshad alias Shadda petitioner (brother of Mst. Musarrat) and Sultan (husband of Mst. Musarrat) held her by her arms, Shadda was armed with a pistol and Sultan had a Lathi. Shadda forcibly lifted her on his shoulders and all the three, namely, Shadda, Sultan and Musarrat, took her outside the village Abadi where she was forcibly seated on a motor‑cycle. Sardar Khan and Ghulam Rasul saw them doing so and asked them to release her but Shadda aimed the pistol towards them and they went away. Then Irshad and Sultan took her to Chak No. 62/J.B. in the house of the latter. Muhammad Hanif, his wife Mst. Seman (sister of Shadda accused) and Mst. Seman, wife of the brother of Sultan, were present in the said house. The prosecutrix was kept there for eight days. During this period both the respondents committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her. Mst. Seman, wife of the brother of Sultan, used to keep a watch. Then she was taken to another Chak where she was kept for five days. Both the respondents committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her in that Chak also. Thereafter, she was taken to Chak No.51/J. B. and after six days she was brought to her village in the house of Irshad alias Shadda. Both of them committed Zina‑bil‑Jabar with her in the house of Irshad alias Shadda, Ibrahim, father of Irshad. Mst. Musarrat, sister of Irshad, and Mst. Barkat Bibi, mother of Irshad alias Shadda respondent, had been keeping watch. On 30th July, 1985 the prosecutrix found opportunity and slipped away from the house. Ibrahim etc. ran after her but she reached her house with her sister's husband Muhammad Aslam and Arif Ali who met her on the way.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the bail application moved by the respondents earlier was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but only a fortnight after that he admitted them to bail when there was no fresh ground, therefore, the order granting bail is unsustainable. He further submits that it was a case of forcible abduction and both the respondents are alleged to have committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr, therefore, it was not at all a fit case for the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that it is a false case and even father of the prosecutrix has sworn affidavit that the respondents have been falsely implicated. He further submits that the F.I.R version is highly improbable and there is no evidence of rape except the statement of the prosecutrix who is playing in the hands of the enemies of the respondents.

5. I have gone through the relevant material. Earlier an application for pre‑arrest bail moved by the respondents and their co‑accused was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 4th September, 1985. The respondents were taken into custody and then they moved an application for bail after arrest which was allowed. The mere fact that an application had been earlier dismissed, was no bar to the grant of bail because considerations for bail after arrest are different from those of bail before arrest. The occurrence took place 22/23 days before 23rd July, 1985. Sardar Khan and Ghulam Rasul saw the incident of forcible abduction but no report was lodged for full three weeks. The prosecutrix has alleged that she was subjected to Zina‑bil‑Jabr for the first time in the house of Sultan respondent in Chak No.62/J.B. and lastly in her village in the house of Irshad alias Shadda respondent. At the first place Mst. Seman (wife of the brother of Sultan) was keeping a watch on her and at the latter place the father, sister and mother of Irshad alias Shadda respondent were keeping watch on her. Prima facie, there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that this version is highly improbable and if it had been a case of forcible abduction the F.I.R. would have been lodged promptly. Affidavits of the father and mother of the prosecutrix are on the file wherein it has been stated that this case is absolutely false and the facts of the matter is that one and a half months earlier Fazil son of Kamal Din (step‑brother of the father of the prosecutrix) and Aslam (husband of the sister of the prosecutrix) enticed away Mst. Rehana Kausar and falsely implicated the respondents and their co‑accused because they were witnesses against aforesaid Fazil and Aslam in a criminal case which had been registered at the instance of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, mother of the prosecutrix. A certified copy of an application made by Bashir Ahmad, father of Mst. Rehana Kausar, against aforesaid Fazil and Muhammad Aslam in the Court of Guardian Judge is placed on file which also contains similar allegations. It is stated therein that Fazil and Aslam enticed his daughter Mst. Rehana Kausar and at her instance got a false case registered against Irshad alias Shadda, Sultan (respondents), Mst Musarrat, wife of Sultan, Barkat Bibi and his husband Ibrahim. In the circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for interference with the order granting bail. The petition is dismissed. S.A. Petition dismissed.