' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 134, registered with Police Station Rangpur, District Muzaffargarh on 21-12-2005 for an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. According to the F.I.R., the story of the prosecution is that on 21-12-2005 at about 8-00 A.M. The daughter of the complainant namely Aliya, aged 9 years, a student of fourth class left for school and did not return till evening. The complainant along with Saeed and Muhammad Azhar started searching for her. In this way, Rab Nawaz son of Sultan met them, who told them that at 5-00 p.m.
He saw Muhammad Asif and Ghulam Shabbir along with Aliya going towards Mauza Gallowala.
Rabnawaz thought that Muhammad Asif, co-accused, who happens to be relative of Aliya is going to the house of the complainant to drop her. On this information, the complainant started search for his daughter towards Chowk Rangpur-Muzaffargarh Canal, Muzaffargarh-Ahmadpur Sial Road and when he along with the witnesses reached near Muzaffargarh Canal, they heard the weeping noise of a child from underneath of the bridge of Canal. The complainant saw in the light of torch that Muhammad Asif and the petitioner were sitting along with Aliya, who ran away towards North after seeing the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and in the F.I.R. There is no allegation of attempt to commit Zina with Aliya Bibi. It is further contended that Aliya has got recorded her statement on 23-12-2005 under section 161, Cr.P.C. Wherein she stated that Muhammad Asif co-accused wanted to commit Zina but the petitioner has restrained him from doing so. Further contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since 22-12-2005. Learned counsel has requested that the petitioner may be granted post-arrest bail as his case falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is also contended that Asif cousin of the alleged abductee who enticed her away has falsely implicated the petitioner. Lastly, it is contended that the alleged abductee herself has stated that Asif has taken her with him under the pretext for giving toffee and the petitioner remained standing on the road. Further contended that mere commencement of trial is not bar for the grant of bail to the accused if he succeeds to make out a case of further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail application by arguing that the victim Aliya is aged about 9 years. It is further contended that out of the 8 witnesses statements of six witnesses have been recorded and due to the non- appearance of learned defence counsel the trial cannot be concluded. Further contended that 40 adjournments have been sought by the learned defence counsel and the offence with which the petitioner is involved falls within the prohibitory clause. It is contended on behalf of the State that the alleged abductee when appeared in the Court has levelled allegation of attempt to commit Zina against the petitioner and his co-accused.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. In the F.I.R.
No allegation has been levelled against the petitioner for any attempt to commit Zina with Aliya Bibi. Statement of Aliya was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 23-12-2005 in which she stated that Asif had actually enticed her away and the petitioner was sitting on the other side of the road.
She was kept on sitting with the accused and Asif co-accused tried to commit Zina with her and it was the petitioner who restrained Asif not to do so. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged abductee has improved her statement during the trial is concerned, its value will be seen by the learned trial Court at the time of its conclusion which is prima facie in contradiction with the statement made before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. For the time being the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry. Commencement of trial is no ground to withhold the bail. When the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And if an accused succeeds to make out a case for grant of bail it is obligatory upon the Court to grant him a bail. In the circumstances I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.