1986 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10(6)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Plea of marriage‑‑Defence plea Accused (lady) was divorced by complainant and thereafter, she married another person (co‑accused)‑‑Accused having given birth, to child‑-‑Nikahnama produced in trial Court‑‑Case being that of further inquiry accused was, therefore, admitted to bail in circumstances. Amir Malik for Applicant. Hasan Akber, A.A.‑G. for the State. Applicant Mst. Robins Shamim and co‑accused Faiyaz Akhtar are facing trial for offence under section 10(2) of Zina Ordinance. F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Joharabad on 19‑4‑1984 b. complainant Shakeel Ahmad who claimed that his Nikah was performed with Mst. Robins and Rukhsati had not taken place and he suspected that she has been abducted by Faiyaz Akhtar with connivance of Mst. Tahira and Mst. Asfa relatives of Mst. Robins Shamim. Applicant Mst. Robins Shamim and co‑accused Faiyaz Akhtar were arrested from the house of latter in Mardan on 28‑3‑1984 and they were brought to Karachi. Applicant was medically examined and according to the certificate her age has been shown as between 16 and 18 years and further she was found to be in advance stage of pregnancy of about 7 or 8 months. During the investigation, her confessional statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has taken the plea that she was divorced by complainant and thereafter she was married to co‑accused Faiyaz Akhtar. Learned counsel for the applicant states that Nikahnama of marriage of applicant and co‑accused was produced in the trial Court at the time of bail application and this fact is not disputed by the learned A.A.‑G. It is also stated that Mst. Tahira and Mst. Asfa both relatives of Mst. Robins Shamim, have filed affidavits in the trial Court to the effect that complainant had divorced Mst. Robins Shamim. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has remained in custody for more than one month and 17 days and she has given birth to a baby in the Jail couple of days ago. Bail plea is urged on' several grounds. Firstly, that applicant is a woman and is entitled to bail as contemplated under section 497, Cr.P.C. and in addition to that she has given birth to a child very recently and the child has to remain in jail if the mother is compelled, to stay there. Secondly, there are defects in the confessional statement and it appears that to a question she has replied that she was giving confessional statement because she was promised by the Police that if she did so she would be saved from conviction. Thirdly, that in any case it is a case of further inquiry because the applicant has taken plea that she was divorced by the complainant and thereafter, she entered into lawful wed‑lock with co‑accused and such Nikahnama has been produced in the trial Court. Mr. Hasan Akbar, A.A.‑G. has stated that no proof has been produced to show that provision of section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 has been complied with. For the facts and reasons stated above, I admit applicant to in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety and P.R. Bond in the bail like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.A. Bail granted.