' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J---Petitioner, Fateh Muhammad, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,138, dated 7-5-2001, offence under sections 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979, registered at Police Station, City Burewala, District Vehari for the allegations of abduction of Mst. Sakina, wife of the complainant, for the purpose of committing Zina with her, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in this case by the complainant due to party faction. There is inordinate and unexplained delay of twelve days in lodging the F.I.R., which has not properly been explained. The alleged abductee Mst. Sakina, filed suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband Haq Nawaz, complainant, which has been decreed vide order dated 11-12-2003. Farooq Ahmad, co- accused has already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 6-10-2003, therefore, case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused and rule of consistency also applies to this case.
Also contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last four years. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is previous non-convict, hence, he deserves the concession of bail.
3. Conversely, learned State counsel opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Specific role has been attributed to him. Challan has been submitted in the Court on 16-8-2002 and the statements of only two P.Ws. Have been recorded so far.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that there is inordinate delay of twelve days in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained. According to the F.I.R., petitioner along with his co-accused abducted Mst. Sakina, wife of the complainant, for the purpose of committing Zina with her, but, she was not medically examined by the police, to prove the offence of Zina. There is another astonishing aspect of the case that the alleged abductee Mst. Sakina got divorced from the complainant by filing a suit for dissolution of marriage, which was decreed in her favour vide order dated 11-12-2003. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 16-8-2002 and only statements of two P.Ws. Have been recorded. There is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last four years and he cannot be detained in the judicial lock-up for an indefinite period. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Co-accused has already been allowed bail by this Court under the similar allegation, thus, rule of consistency is fully applied to the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.