1994 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16/10

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.355

Bail, grant of

Co-accused after having been found innocent during investigation were discharged

Complainant also was found to have eloped with the accused and was associated with the crime as co-accused, but had been released on bail by Sessions Court

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Taqi Khan for Petitioner. Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State. A case under section 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 355, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioners and others on the 3rd of July, 1992 with Police Station Safda, Abad, District Sheikhupura at the instance of Mst. Asia Bano.

2. The complainant a married woman, had alleged that while she was present in her house on 18th of June, 1992, her neighbour Mst. Shabana took her along on the pretext that they will take her ailing mother to hospital. When they reached near Hospital, Muhammad Afzal petitioner alongwith Muhammad Ashraf was present and they forcibly put her in the car and whisked off at the instance of Mst. Hadayat Bibi and Mst. Shabana. She was taken to a house where both the brothers committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her and also deprived her of her golden ornaments. She, however, was present at bus-stand on the 3rd of July, 1992 for taking the bus for Faisalabad, alongwith accused, when Shaukat and Rashid P.Ws. alighted from a bus. On seeing them, the petitioner left the place leaving her alone. She, therefore, narrated to the said P.Ws. what had happened to her, whereafter they took her home and subsequently she got a case registered.

3. During investigation both the ladies namely, Mst. Shabana and Mst. Hadayat as well as Ashraf accused against whom definite allegation of Zina was made in the F.I.R., were found innocent and discharged. This reacts on credibility of the entire version stated by the complainant. It was further found that in fact the complainant had eloped with the petitioner and remained with him till the latter was arrested. The police, therefore, also associated the complainant with the crime as co-accused of the petitioner. The complainant (Mst. Asia), however, was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the 15th of September, 1992.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged bail on the grounds that the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner after an unexplained delay; that the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of consistency after the co accused (complainant) having been admitted to bail and that there is no eye witness of the offence of Zina attributed to him.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed bail but the circumstances narrated supra do make out a case for bail. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty B thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Ilaqa Magistrate, Sheikhupura. N.H.Q./M-818/L Bail allowed,