' The petitioner has filed post-arrest bail application in F.I.R. No,38 of 2005 dated 3-2-2005 under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 at Police Station "B" Division, Kasur.
2. Briefly, according to F.I.R., the complainant Zahida reported to the S.H.O., Police Station "B" Division, Kasur that on 22-1-2005 her father Abdul Ghani had gone to Lahore. Her mother was also not at home. The complainant was suffering with fever. One Mst. Jeo daughter of Amanat Ali came to their house and suggested that she knew one spiritual person who prays and complainant's fever would be cured. Complainant further stated that she left her home with Mst. Jeo who took her to a house where petitioner armed with pistol came and committed rape on her. Whereafter petitioner took the complainant on motorcycle to a village named Bazeed Pur where she was kept by petitioner for two days. During the said stay of two days, petitioner kept on committing rape on her till she was brought back by her father.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that story of the F.I.R. Is concocted one and is contradicted by the complainant herself in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Dated 24-5-2004. In the said statement she refuted allegations levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel also referred to MLR which reveals that no mark of violence was found on the person of the victim/complainant. According to the learned counsel the complainant actually married to one Muhammad Rafi on 30-5-2005. Learned counsel submits that petitioner arrested and is behind the bars since 13-3-2005. No recovery of weapon or anything else has been effected from him.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded after submissions of challan, therefore, it has no evidentiary value. According to him, the complainant was again kidnapped after dismissal of bail of the petitioner from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and since then she is under influence of accused/petitioner. He also submits that challan in this case has already been submitted and this bail should not be granted.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the statement of complainant/victim recorded by the learned Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein she clearly stated that she was neither abducted by petitioner nor subjected to Zina by him. She further stated that her signatures were obtained by Muhammad Yasin and Abdul Qayyum on plain papers on the promise that some land would be transferred in her name. She also stated that she made an application that the case be cancelled against the petitioner. Since the investigation in this case is complete and the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation for recovery therefore, no useful purpose would be served if he is kept in the imprisonment. He has already been behind the bars since 13-3-2005.
6. In view of statement of the complainant/abductee under section 164, Cr.P.C. There are sufficient grounds to believe that this case is of further inquiry, therefore, this bail application is allowed subject to furnishing surety bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs,25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.