' Mst. Sadia Anjum and Iqrar Hussain have sought pot-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.402 of 2004 dated 15-10-2004 registered on the complaint of Muhammad Aslam under sections 16/10(2) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 at Police Station, City Shuja Abad District, Multan.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioners as per prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. Is that on 1-4-2004 petitioner No.2 Iqrar Hussain abducted petitioner No.1, Mst. Sadia Anjum, who was previously married to one Muhammad Musa Khan son of Khan Muhammad resident of Tehsil Kamalia District Faisalabad and was also in a family way at the time of occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case without any lawful justification and with ulterior motives of the local police at the instance of complainant. That the petitioners are legally husband and wife and petitioner No.1 being sui juris contracted marriage with petitioner No.2 on 15-6-2003. That petitioner No.1 was never abducted by anyone nor was forced to marry with petitioner No.2 rather she contracted marriage out of her own free-will and consent and allegations against the petitioners are false and baseless and have no value in the eye of law, That petitioner No.1 was not previously married prior to contracting marriage with petitioner No.2 and Nikahnama dated 4-1-2002 allegedly solemnized between petitioner No.1 and one Moosa was found to be forged one. Affidavits of Bashir Ahmad, Zawar Ahmad, Zahoor Hussain and Maqbool Hussain were produced to substantiate the plea that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are legally wedded spouse. That there is unexplained delay of ten months in lodging the F.I.R. That petitioner No.1 Mst. Sadia Anjum has one suckling baby namely Shan Ali aged about 7 months from the wedlock of petitioner No.2. That the petitioners are behind the bars for the last about six months and could not be kept in lock-up for an indefinite period. That case of the petitioners is of further inquiry and also does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. That during the pendency of the petition the petitioner No.1 was allowed ad interim bail, in the meanwhile.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that case of the petitioners falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And provisions of section 11 are also attracted to the petitioner's case. That petitioner No.1 Mst. Sadia Anjum was previously wedded wife of one Muhammad Moosa. That petitioners have been found guilty during the course of investigation and section 10(2) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 has been added.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record Mst. Sadia Anjum petitioner No.1 has sworn an affidavit that she is legally wedded wife of Iqrar Hussain petitioner No.2 having a son namely Shan All aged 7 months from his wedlock. She has also stated that she does not know Muhammad Musa and her Nikah was never performed with him. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced affidavits of Zahoor Hussain, Maqbool Hussain, Zawar Hussain, Bashir Ahmad and Malik Karam Din to support the petitioner's version. Malik Karam Din is Nikah Registrar who has stated that he had performed the Nikah of Mst. Sadia Anjum with Iqrar Hussain on 15-6- 2003 and the same was registered at serial No.91 in his register. The signatures of Mst. Sadia Anjum on Nikahnama (Annex-C) dated 15-6-2003 of her Nikah with Iqrar Hussain petitioner No.2 were found to be genuine by Forensic Science Laboratory whereas her signature on other so-called Nikahnama with Muhammad Moosa dated 4-1-2002 was found to be fabricated which prima facie makes case of petitioner that of further enquiry. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and petitioner No.1 is granted post-arrest bail, whereas interim post-arrest to Mst. Sadia Anjum petitioner No.2 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.