2000 PLP 2293 (YLR)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337‑L(ii)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/16‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had claimed that alleged abductee was his wedded wife as their Nikah was performed and they were living as husband and wife‑‑‑Accused had further claimed that Nikahnama whereby alleged abductee was married to other person as claimed by complainant in F.LR. was forged and fabricated document‑‑‑Alleged abductee had been stated to be living with her in-laws‑‑‑No case under S. 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, prima facie was made out against the accused‑‑‑Offence under S.337‑L(ii), P. P. C. being punishable with imprisonment for two years and bail-able question as to whether accused was guilty of offence under S.10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was a matter of further inquiry‑‑‑Bail was granted to accused in circumstances. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners. Anwarul Haq for the State. This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1344‑B of 1999 and Criminal .Miscellaneous No. 155C‑B of 1999 and both the applications pertain to the same F.I.R.

2. The petitioners are accused of commission of offences under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 337‑L(ii), P.P.C. One Muhammad Azam lodged information at Police Station City, Layyah that on the night between 24/25‑1‑1999 he was awoke hearing soine noise and found the petitioners in both the petitions alongwith Mst. Amina and Mst. Aisha present alongwith his daughter Mst. Farzana and after inflicting blows to one Ijaz and Muhammad Nawaz with sticks the said persons took away Mst. Farzana. He also found some gold ornaments and cash mentioned in the F.I.R. missing. He complained that the said persons have taken away his daughter to commit Zina. A case was accordingly registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No.36 of 1999, dated 25‑1‑1999. The bail application of Mst. Farzana was allowed while that of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Layyah, vide order, dated 5‑7‑1999. Learned counsel submits that the said Mst. Farzana is the lawful wedded wife of Noor Muhammad petitioner. Their Nikah was performed on 26‑10‑1998 and thereafter they have been living as husband and wife as a result whereof the said Farzana is in a family way. A copy of the Nikahnama is also placed on the record. The complainant's plea is that his daughter was married to one Saifullah and Nikah was preformed on 10‑9‑1998.1 have gone through the record and found that neither in the F.I.R. nor in any other statements recorded by the police there is any allegation that Noor Muhammad was aware of the alleged 'Nikah of Mst. Farzana with Saifullah (according to the petitioners the said Nikahnama is a forged and fabricated document). Mst. Farzana is stated to be living with her in‑laws. In this state of affairs I find that an offence under section 16 of the said Ordinance is not prima facie made out. So far as section 337‑L(ii), P.P.C. is concerned the same is punishable with an imprisonment for two years and is bail-able. The question as to whether Noor Muhammad is guilty of an offence under section 10 of the said Ordinance is a matter of further inquiry. The accused persons are behind the bars since 25‑6‑1999. I, therefore, allow both the Criminal Miscellaneous and admit the petitioners to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./I‑14/L Petitions allowed.