' The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No,658 of 2004. Which was registered at Police Station, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad on 18-6-2004 under sections 10/13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that contents of the F.I.R. Do not reveal that the petitioner has committed the offence. He further submits that medical evidence is also supporting the cause of the petitioner and dislodged the contents of the F.I.R. He further submits that Investigating Officer has found the petitioner innocent. He further submits that basically there is a dispute between the petitioner and her husband. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for bail in view of Proviso I of section 497, Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Munir Ahmad v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 314; ' Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 295; ' Shaukat Ali v. The State 2004 YLR 1798.
3. The learned State counsel submits that medical evidence is not in favour of the prosecution and the petitioner is also found innocent by the Investigation Officer in the last Zimni dated 23-10-2004.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner has been declared innocent by the Investigation Officer coupled with the fact that the medical evidence is also in favour of the petitioner which contradicts the story of the prosecution, therefore, there are reasonable grounds for believing false implication hence possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. This fact brings the case of the petitioner under the phrase "further inquiry". In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down in Rehmat Ullah's case 1970 SCM R 299; Mohsin's case 1977 PCr.LJ 159 and Abdul Qadir's case 1980 PCr.LJ 397. The case of the petitioner also falls under Proviso I of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the ad interim bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to her furnishing fresh surety bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge concerned.
Ad interim .