1986 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) Ss. 10 & 16‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑Co‑accused allegedly staying in house of complainant (husband of accused)‑‑On following morning, co‑accused and accused were found missing‑‑No eye‑witness to commission of Zina shown‑‑Sections 10 & 16 not found to be attracted to facts of case‑‑Accused being a woman‑‑Pre‑arrest bail allowed with direction to accused to join investigation. Shabbir Lali for Petitioner. Farrukh Hamayun for the State. Mst. Rashidan petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case under Articles 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance, 1979.

2. The petitioner is the wife of Muhammad Yaqub complainant. The allegations are that on 7th February, 1985 co‑accused Azam, Sharif and Bashir came to the house of the complainant on a motor‑cycle and told the petitioner that she was being called by her ailing mother who had been admitted in the hospital. The mother of the complainant informed them that all the members of the family will visit the mother of the petitioner on the following morning. The aforementioned accused stayed for the night in the house of the complainant. On the following morning they and Mst. Rashidan petitioner were found missing. On checking, the household effects some cash and ornaments were also found missing.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that co‑accused Bashir is the real brother of the petitioner and it is unbelievable that he would be instrumental in abduction for some illicit purpose. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is an allegation therein that she was having illicit relations with Azam, therefore, no ground for extraordinary concession of pre‑arrest bail is made out. He however, concedes that there is no eye‑witness to the commission of Zina.

4. I have gone through the relevant material. The case has been registered under Articles 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. There is no eye‑witness to the commission of Zina. Section 16 is also not attracted which provides punishment for enticing or taking away or detaining a woman with criminal intent. Moreover, the petitioner is a woman. I, therefore, admit her to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. She has been directed join the investigation if and when required. In case she fails to do s the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application for the cancellation of her bail. H. A. K. Bail granted.