' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.-The petitioner Mst. Nasreen Bibi moved an application for pre- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,80, dated 22-2-2004 registered under sections 10(2)/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Gogera District Okara.
2. This court admitted the petitioner to ad interim pre-arrest bail till today and record was also requisitioned.
3. The complainant, real brother, of the petitioner stated to have found her with Munir Ahmed committing Zina in the residential house of the complainant 10 days before lodging of the F.I.R.
Coaccused Munir Ahmad ran away from the place as he was armed with pistol and threatened the complainant and his companions, if anybody came near, he will be killed, her sister pleaded for pardon. He did not move for the registration of case because of family honour.
4. Again on 21-2-2004 he was away from his house working in the fields; came back for lunch and found that his sister is missing. On inquiry, it was disclosed by Muhammad Shakeel son of Siddique and Riaz son of Bashir Ahmed to have seen the petitioner and Munir Ahmed proceeding towards the metalled road.' In the consequence thereof, the case was registered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in both the occurrence, the witnesses are the same. Besides petitioner, her mother, sister and brothers live in the same residential house, where the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence of Zina; that the petitioner has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband, who forced her for prostitution; that her brother complainant had sold her against a consideration of Rs, 1,50,000 and that she deserted the house of her husband because he forced her to lead immoral life.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the State after having received instructions from the Investigating Officer stated that the occurrence appears to be based on mala fide. According to him the witnesses of both the alleged occurrence are one and the same. The person of petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation and that the case of petitioner falls within the amended provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
7. I have considered arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The petitioner seriously apprehends danger to her life at the hands of the complainant and her husband. She had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband. The first occurrence was not reported by the complainant to the police. Even otherwise, the alleged occurrence seemingly has not taken place. The residential house was occupied by the petitioner and other family members. The medical examination of the petitioner, if to be conducted at this stage, will serve,no purpose as the vaginal swa bs remain active for the period of 17 days.
9. As to the offence under sections 16/10 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 allegedly there is evidence against petitioner being taken away by her co-accused Muhammad Munir except statement of Muhammad Shakeel and Muhammad Riaz. The offence in respect of this second occurrence falls within the purview of section 16 of the Ordinance, which is not punishable with an imprisonment exceeding 10 years. The petitioner has joined the investigation. Her person is no longer required by the police for the purpose of investigation as stated by. The Investigating Officer. Her case is fully covered by amendment introduced in section 497, Cr.P.C. Her application for bail is allowed and interim bail already granted is confirmed.
Pre-arrest .