1989 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10, 13 & 14‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Occurrence took place at 10‑00 p.m. in a room‑ Nothing was available to indicate as to how raiding party saw commission of Zina‑‑No evidence available to show as to whether light in the room was on or off or whether door of the room in which offence was alleged to have been committed was bolted from inside or not‑‑Case being that of further inquiry, bail was granted. Khalid Mehmood Pasha for Petitioner. Azhar Javed Rana for the State. A case under section 10/13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of ` Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, stands registered against the petitioner and three others, with Police Station Factory Area, Lahore, vide F.I.R., dated 30‑3‑1989. The allegations against the petitioner and his co‑accused are that a secret information was received by Fazal Mahmood, S.I., that the petitioner alongwith two men and two women were committing Zina in her Haveli. In pursuance of the said information a raiding party was constituted which found the petitioner committing Zina with Barkat Ali co‑accused. Similarly Khushi Muhammad co‑' accused of the petitioner was found committing Zina with Mst. Rani. In pursuance of the said raid the petitioner was arrested at the spot. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner on the face of it appears to be false. Submits that there is nothing in the F.I.R., which could indicate whether the room in which the offence was being committed was bolted or not. Submits that it is highly improbable that the petitioner alongwith three co‑accused would be indulging in such affair in a room. Contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 10 p.m. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to indicate how the first informant and other members of the raiding party saw them indulging in the offence of Zina. There is no indication whether the light in the room was on or not. Similarly, there is no indication whether the room where the offence was being committed was bolted from inside or not. In the absence of any explanation I feel it becomes a case of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. S.A./A‑714/L Bail allowed.