1986 P Cr (PLP)

Qazi Yasin for the State. Date of hearing: 25th November, 1985. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner involved in a case under Articles 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 379/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code. He has moved this petition for bail. The F.I.R. version is that co‑accused Allah Bakhsh alias Bakhsh developed illicit relations with Mst. Zubeda aged 14/15 years, unmarried daughter of. Muhammad Yusuf complainant. The complainant forted him from visiting his house. On 7th September, 1985 at 8/9 p.m. co‑‑accuse. Ghulam Bibi took away Mst. Zubeda on the pretext of answering the call of nature. The complainant waited for her but she did not return. Muhammad Afzal and Ashraf informed him that they had seen Mst. Zubeda in the company of Allah Bakhsh, Ali, Ahmed, Ghulam Bibi and Ghulam Rasul near Kot Shada Drain, Jahanabad. They were also carrying a suit‑case. On checking the household effects, the complainant fount: that golden ornaments, clothes and Rs.5.000 in cash were missing. The case was registered on 15‑9‑1985.

2. Mst. Zubeda was recovered on 29‑2‑1985 when she was going, the company of Bakhsha, Ghulam Rasul, Ali and Ahmad co‑accused. On the same day she made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C wherein she stated that Mst. Sakina and Mst. Gamin were the sisters of her mother; on the night of occurrence they came to her and after taking; meals slept near her in the Haveli while her father slept on the roof of the house; both of them took her out of the village on the pretext of making water; Bakhsh, Ahmed, Ali and Ghulam Rasul were present, outside the village. They overpowered, her. Co-accused Bakhsha went to her house and brought the box containing ornaments etc from there and then all of them took her to the, Dera of Ali Ahmed, Ali and Ghulam Rasul kept the box with them and made her to sit with Bakhsha in a sugarcane, field where she was kept for two nights. Bakhsha. Ahmad and Ali committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her in that field. Then ail the four took her to Chak Allahyar at the Dera of Ghulam Rasul, from there she was taken Jalalpur and then to the house of Ramzan Petitioner situate in village Sambalan. She was kept there for 16/17 days. The petitioner had been committing Zina with her. Then she was again, taken to Chak Allahyar by Ahmed, Ali and Ghulam Rasul. She was recovered by the police when she was in the company of Ahmed, Ali Ghulam Rasul and Bakhsha who fled away on seeing the police

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is serious conflict in the F.I.R. version and the statement of Mst. Zubeda under section 164, Cr. P C. according to the father of Mst. Zubeda she had developed illicit relations with Bakhsh alias Bakhshu and the allegations clearly show that it was a case of elopement and not ref abduction. He submitted that the allegation made by Mst. Zubeda against the petitioner is absolutely false and the fact of the matter is that co‑accused Bakhshu. who was previously known to the petitioner came to the Dera of the petitioner alongwith Mst. Zubeda and told him that she was his wife. The petitioner permitted them to stay there and when he came to know that she was not his wife he told them that they would be handed over to the police upon. which both of them stealthily slipped away. Learned counsel further stated that the petitioner is father of six children and it is unbelievable that he would commit Zina at his Dera where his wife, children, brothers and sister were also residing. It was vehemently contended that the position of Mst. Zubeda is not better than an accomplice there is no other witness to the commission of Zina, therefore a there are no reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence with which he has been charged. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

4. I have gone through the file. In the F.I.R the complainant had stated that on 7‑9‑1985 at 8/9 p.m. Mst. Ghulam Bibi called out Mst. Zubeda and took her away on the pretext of answering the call of nature and he kept waiting for her but she did not return. He further stated that on checking household effects he found ornaments, clothes. Rs.5,000 in cash and a suit‑case were missing which she had taken away. Mst Zubeda, however gave a. different version in her statement saying that Mst. Sakina and Mst. Gamin took her away on the pretext of making water when her father was sleeping on the Hoof of the house Bakhshu, Ahmed, Ali and Ghulam Rasul who were present outside the village overpowered her and after that co‑accused Bakhshu went to her house and brought the box containing ornaments etc. Thus, the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. materially different from the contents of the F.I.R. There is no allegation of abduction against the petitioner. Moreover, a bare reading of the F.I.R., which was lodged by the father of the so‑called abductee, would show that it was a case of elopement and not of abduction. According to the F.I.R Mst. Zubeda had illicit relations with co‑accused Bakhshu and at the time of leaving the house, she had taken away ornaments clothes: Rs. 5,000 in cash and a suit‑case. These facts amply show that she had left the parental B roof of her own. According to the medico‑legal report Mst. Zubeda is aged 22/24 years, there was no mark of violence on her body, hymen had old tears and vagina admitted two fingers easily. The Woman Medical Officer opined that she was used to sexual intercourse. It is admitted that except Mst. Zubeda there is no other witness to the commission of Zina. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has sufficient force. In the circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha. H.A.K. Bail granted