1987 P Cr (PLP)

A case under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station Jalalpur Jattan on 2‑2‑1982.

2. The petitioner approached this Court for anticipatory bail. He was admitted to interim bail and the record was sent for. He did not turn up on the next date of hearing. Opportunity was given to his counsel to produce him, but he did not turn up. The petition was dismissed on 22‑5‑1982 on account of his having absented. In fact counsel for the petitioner had sought to withdraw the petition and the same was disposed of as having been withdrawn.

3. In the meantime, a murder case had been registered against the petitioner and others. In fact the case was registered on 18‑4‑1982. The petitioner and one of his co‑accused in the murder case, did not Court arrest. They were declared absconders in that case.

4. The three others, who were arrested, were tried by a Special Military Court. Two of them were convicted and sentenced to death. The third was acquitted. (According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the two condemned have already been executed, and the accused who had absconded like the petitioner, died in police combat).

5. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Gujranwala Range in October last. He was arrested in the murder case as well as in this case. He has already been granted bail in the murder case. He seeks bail in the case in hand.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only allegation against the petitioner is of having been seen sitting in the Tonga in which the alleged abductee was being taken away by the other accused, with the allegation that he was also one of the abductors. According to learned counsel, the abductee in this case has also been arraigned as an accused. She had been arrested but has absconded after, bail.

7. Learned counsel for the State/complainant oppose the grant of bail, contending that the petitioner had absconded for a pretty long time and that section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was also added later. However, both learned counsel are not in a position to state whether there was any allegation of commission of Zina by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, pointed out that he has placed on record copies of the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded by the Court, in which no allegation of Zina has been levelled against the petitioner.

9. There being no allegation of Zina against the petitioner, and the abductee on having been arraigned as accused has absconded after release on bail, and the petitioner being in jail for the last about 6 months, I feel inclined to exercise discretion in his favour, particularly so when he has already been granted bail in the murder case. He shall be released on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat. However, if it comes to the notice of the State that there is evidence of commission of Zina against the petitioner, they shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail. S.A./R‑14/L Bail granted.