2002 PLP 3707 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused made a statement before Magistrate under S.164, Cr. P. C. wherein she stated that she was never abducted by anybody and that she intended to get married with co‑accused‑‑‑Record had shown that accused was legally wedded wife of co‑accused and copy of Nikahnama was available on record‑‑ Complainant had alleged that Nikahnama relied upon by accused was prepared after registration of present case and such document could not be taken into consideration‑‑‑Question of genuineness of the document of Nikahnama could only be resolved by Trial Court after appraisal of evidence produced by parties‑‑‑Case requiring further inquiry, accused was entitled to concession of bail. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad Kamboh for Petitioner. Azhar Ali Shah for the Complainant. Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State. Date of hearing: 21st January, 2002. Petitioner seeks grant of post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.217, dated 8‑7‑2001 registered under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has been observed that initially the story of the prosecution was that Mst. Khalida Parveen petitioner was abducted by one Muhammad Ilyas for the purpose of fornication but later on during investigation the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused person. She was taken into custody on 5‑10‑2001. Record of this case shows that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Muhammad Ilyas. The Nikah was performed on 12‑7‑2001 and the Copy of Nikahnama is also available on the file. The file also reveals that Mst. Khalid Parveen petitioner made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate stating therein that she was never abducted by anybody and she intends to get marry with Muhammad Ilyas. Learned counsel, for the complainant submits that the Nikahnama relied upon by the petitioner's counsel was prepared after the registration of the present case and the same document cannot be taken into consideration. The question stout the genuineness of the document in question can only be resolves by the Trial Court after appraisal o. evidence produced by the parties. Prima facie, in the circumstances, case of the petitioner requires further inquiry entitling her to the concession of bail. Even otherwise, the petitioner being lady, her case covered under 1st proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum or Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./K‑174/L Bail granted.