1989 PLP 4681(2) (MLD)

Date of hearing: 11th July, 1988. On 2‑10‑1988 at Police Station Pir Mahal, Distt. Toba Tok Singh a case under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against Shaukat Ali petitioner and his grand‑mother Mst. Karim Bibi at the instance of Dildar Muhammad.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24‑9‑1988 the petitioner and his grand‑mother had enticed away the daughter of the complainant Mst.Nasreen Akhtar aged about 13 years with the object of subjecting her to Zina‑bil‑Jabr.

3. On 15‑10‑1988 the investigating officer received secret information that the abductee and the petitioner were present at the local bus stand. He arrested them from there.

4. On 16‑10‑1988 Mst. Nasreen Akhtar abductee was produced before a Magistrate where she made a statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. in support of the allegation contained in the F.I.R. She further stated that the petitioner had been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her.

5. After the completion of the investigation the petitioner and his grand mother were challaned. Now from the judicial lock up he has applied for his bail.

6. I have heard the parties' counsel and have gone through the record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity between him and the father of the abductee. In order to show that the present case was false he referred to the affidavit sworn by Muhammad Mushtaq PW and the statement of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar abductee which she made on 24‑1‑1989 before Malik Mushtaq Ahmad, Magistrate Ist Class, Toba Tek Singh in complaint titled Mst. Nasreen Akhtar v. Dilawar Hussain. According to the prosecution case on 24‑9‑1988 Muhammad Mushtaq and Muhammad Tufail PWs had seen the petitioner and his grand‑mother taking away Mst. Nasreen Akhtar abductee. Muhammad Mushtaq PW, however, has sworn on affidavit that he had not witnessed the said incident and that the story of abduction was totally false. In her statement before the Magistrate on 24‑1‑1989 the abductee has clearly stated that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity with her father and that he had never abducted her or committed Zina with her. She further stated that after the registration of the said case the police had been taking her along for about two days during which she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.

8. There are now two variant and totally contradictory statements of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, abductee before us which she made before two Magistrates on 16‑10‑1988 and 24‑1‑1989. Her subsequent statement belies the prosecution case. Similarly, material on record about her age is also discrepant. In the F.I.R. she is shown as 13 years old. Before the Magistrate on 16‑10‑1988 her age was given as 13/14. During her medical examination on 16‑10‑1988 she was shown to be 17 years old while in her statement dated 24‑1‑1989 she gave her age as 18 years. These variant statements of the abductee and discrepant evidence about her age coupled with the affidavit of Muhammad Mushtaq PW make it a lit case for further inquiry. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to bail and is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Toba Tek Singh. S.A./S‑560/L. Bail granted.