' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Ghulam Akbar, petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.83 of 2004 dated 6-3-2004 registered under sections 10/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordiannce (VII of 1979) at Police Station, Dajal District, Raj anpur .
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that he along with his co-accused abducted the wife of complainant Allah Ditta.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is unexplained delay of fifteen days in lodging the F.I.R. That the abductee has negated the prosecution story. That no Medico-Legal Certificate of the alleged abductee regarding commission of Zina regarding rape exists 'on the record. That all the co-accused namely Mithoo, Ghulam Sarwar, Bashir Ahmad, Mst. Aasho have already been granted bail from the learned trial Court. Further submits that investigation has been completed. Challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of investigation and case against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. He has relied on "Munir Ahmed v. The State" 1997 PCr.LJ 91 and "Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. The State" 2005 YLR 693.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submits that petitioner has been nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Petitioner is behind the bars since 7-6-2004. Pre-arrest bail of Mithoo and Bashir Ahmad co-accused were confirmed vide orders dated 31-3-2004 and 15-9-2004 respectively while Ghulam Sarwar and Mst. Aasho Mai were granted post-arrest bails vide orders dated 15-9-2004 and 2-12-2004 respectively. Challan in the case was submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 30-6-2004 and further detention of petitioner would serve no purpose and case against the petitioner also does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the co-accused have already been granted bails from the learned trial Court and under the rule of consistency too the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
6. For what has been discussed above petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.