1999 PLP 1714 (YLR)

A case under section 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is registered against the petitioner and others on the ground that they abducted' Mst. Rajwanti a young girl of about 14 years of age for the purpose of committing Zina‑bil -Jabr with her. The abductee was last seen with the petitioner and other accused by Ghulam Haider and Muhammad Iqbal P.Ws., who have sworn affidavits exonerating the petitioner by deposing that they had not seen any such occurrence.

2. In view of the above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of abduction against the petitioner is not founded on trustworthy evidence because the abductee herself stated in her statement that she was taken away by the petitioner as he was teaching her earlier as a tutor and during his tuteage he was taking liberty with her and developed illicit relations with her in pursuance of which he took her in his paternal uncle's house where she was subjected to Zina‑bil‑Jabr on two occasions. This statement was made allegedly by the victim under section 161, Cr.P.C. and that it related to the time, when the present occurrence had not taken place. It was contended that it was a case of further inquiry as no allegation of Zina‑bil‑Jabr was made by the victim against the present petitioner for the occurrence alleged in this case. In this connection, it was submitted that the abductee was recovered from the Gora Jail, Sialkot in which she was lodged after she was caught and recovered from the house of Hawaldar Yasin of Pak Army. It was, therefore, contended that in fact the actual culprit was Hawaldar Yasin who might have committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with the victim. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Saleem Ullah v. The State reported as 1993 PCr.LJ 1533, Irshad alias Judan v. The State reported as 1994 PCr.LJ 2210 and Khan Muhammad v. The State reported as 1994 PCr.LJ 2542 to contend that it was a case of further enquiry.

3. The learned counsel for the State has however, opposed the bail petition on the ground that the victim is a young girl of about 14 years of age and has clearly stated that petitioner had developed illicit relations with her while he was engaged as a tutor to teach her at home. She also clearly stated that she was subjected to illicit intercourse twice against her will by the petitioner after taking her to his paternal uncle's house and thereafter, handed over her to Yasin Army Hawaldar, from where she was recovered by the Army Authorities. It was, therefore, contended that petitioner was linked with the occurrence and as such he had no case for bail.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that statement of victim Mst. Rajwanti a young girl of about 14 years of age is quite relevant. She has clearly stated that she was subjected to Zina‑bil‑Jabr twice by the petitioner after he had developed illicit liaison with her while teaching her as tutor.

5. In view of above facts, the petitioner has no case for bail at this stage and his bail petition is accordingly dismissed. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./Q‑16/L Bail dismissed.