1992 P Cr (PLP)

Shaista Qaiser for the Complainant Petitioner seeks bail in the case registered against him on 1‑2‑1992 at Police Station Sadar, Renala Khurd, Okara, under section 10/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on the statement of Muhammad Abbas, brother of Mst. Zubaida, for an occurrence said to have taken place two months earlier.

2. According to the F.I.R., Mst. Zubaida Bibi; who was married, returned to the house of her brother (complainant) three years prior to the occurrence, due to strained relations with her husband. The petitioner, being a relative of the complainant, used to visit his house. He allegedly cultivated illicit connections with Mst. Zubaida during that period. The complainant tried to stop Mst. Zubaida from pursuing the illicit connections, but she did not comply. One day when the complainant returned home alongwith Jalal Din, husband of his other sister, they saw Ashiq and Mst. Zubaida lying on a cot committing Zina. They tried to catch the petitioner, but he succeeded in running away. The elders of the Panchayat got the matter hushed up. Few days later when complainant came home after doing work, Mst. Zubaida was not in the house. His mother informed him that list. Maryam, daughter of Muhammad Sharif, had taken away Mst: Zubaida on the pretext of easing. During search, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Ayub informed him that they had seen the petitioner and Mst. Maryam taking away Mst. Zubaida alongwith her 3/4 years daughter towards the Chowk. The complainant asked the relatives of the petitioner to return Mst. Zubaida through Panchayat. He promised, but later flatly refused. It is stated in the F.I.R. that Ashiq Ali had taken away Mst. Zubaida for committing Zina with her.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mst. Zubaida was divorced by Muhammad Abdullah, her former husband, in October, 1991 has neither been denied by the learned counsel for the State nor tile learned counsel for the complainant. The allegation levelled in the F.I.R., therefore, that Mst. Zubaida was a .married lady and was living in the house of' the complainant due to strained relations with her husband stands repulsed. Although the learned counsel for the State/complainant have conceded that Mst. Zubaida was now regularly wedded wife of the petitioner, but they have stated that such marriage had taken place after abduction and 'commission of Zina. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the whole story has been cooked up as Mst. Zubaida, who had to leave her former husband due to intolerable conditions, married the petitioner against the wishes of the complainant who wanted to marry her with someone else for money. According to him, false allegations have been levelled that she was abducted and that the petitioner committed Zina with her prior to entering into Nikah.

4. In view of the fact that the dissolution of the former Nikah has been admitted and the performance of Nikah with the petitioner has also not been denied, the other contentions of the learned counsel for the State/complainant, in my view, need further inquiry.

5. The petition is, therefore, allowed. He shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Okara. N.H.Q:/A‑160/L Bail allowed.