' The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.453 of 2003, dated 30-9-2003, under sections 10(3) and 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station, Saddar Pakpattan.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Suleman son of Muhammad Ameer stated before police on 30-9-2003 that on 15-7-2003 Muhammad Ameen (petitioner), Dullah, Ameer, Saleem and Mst.
Ameeran Bibi took his daughter (Tasneem Kausar) from his house. He further stated that accused also took away cash etc. From his house. On his statement present case was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on 20-3-2004. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments, and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of 2-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R. But the same has not been explained by the complainant, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. He contended that according to statement of abductee (Mst. Tasneem Kausar) she reached the house of her husband two months after the occurrence but she appeared before police on 5-4-2004, therefore, prosecution story becomes doubtful. He further contended that remaining accused Saleem, Abdullah and Mst. Ameeran Bibi are already on bail, therefore, petitioner too deserves concession of bail. He has argued that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 20-3-2004 but trial has not commenced so far, hence he is entitled to be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that on 15-7-2003 he along with his co- accused took away Mst. Tasneem Kausar (complainant's daughter) from his house whereas case was registered on 30-9-2003. So there is unexplained delay of 2-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R. And petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the same. Nazir Ahmad, S.-I. Who is present in Court states that Mst. Tasneem Kausar appeared before Magistrate on 6-4-2004 and stated that she reached the house of her husband two months after the occurrence and that she had been living with him.
She further stated that she gave birth to a child and thereafter appeared before police on 5-4- 2004. As such it is clear that Mst. Tasneem Kausar joined the investigation about 7 months after returning her house. During said period she remained with her husband. She is star witness in this case but she remained silent for 7 months. As such the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 20-3-2004 but trial has not commenced so far. His co-accused are already on bail. In these circumstances without going into merit of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. So application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 80,000 (rupees eighty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, observations made in this order would not prejudice case of any party during trial.