1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, C.J.-By this order I intend to dispose of the above Cr., Bail application arising out of Crime No,421 of 2006 registered at Police Station Suhrab Goth, District Malir, Karachi for offence under sections 13/14/ 10(3) of Zina Ordinance.
2. ' The prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R, is that on 7-9-2006 at 1800 hours F.I.R. No,421 of 2006 under sections 13/14/10(3) of Zina Ordinance was registered at Sohrab Goth Police Station on the basis of a complaint/application moved by complainant namely, Mst. Nazia daughter of Abdul Majeed to the Chairman, Rabta Committee, MQM, Karachi, wherefrom it was forwarded to Sohrab Goth Police Station. The contents of the F.I.R. Are reproduced extenso herein below:-- ' "To, ' The Chairman Rabta Committee, ' Pakistan Mutheda Qaumi Moment, 90, Azizabad Karachi ' Respected Sir, ' It is submitted that about three years back, Nazia Abdul Majeed was married with one Sajid. Oh 2nd August, 2006 Sajid on the pretext to meet with his friend Tariq, took me to his house situated at Lasi Goth and sold me to Tariq in the sum of Rs,12,000 and handed over my divorce and one Mobile , Phone to Tariq. Thereafter, Tariq forcibly entered into Nikah with me and recorded a cassette that I am happily entering into Nikah, whereas all such done on gunpoint and for twenty one day they forcibly committed zina with me and kept me on different places. Fareed, Sajid and Ishaque were accompanied with Tariq. On 21st August, 2006 at 1-00 a.m. (night) I was handed over to the following persons namely Abdul Majeed, Yaqoob Ashraf, Arshad Sattar, Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Saleem, Yaqoob Ranjha, hence I for God sake, request you that action be initiated according to law and shariah against the persons named abpve who are worst criminals and aWard them punishment as they are not entitled for any mercy, Do the Justice with me. 1 shall be grateful.
3. (Sd.) Applicant Mst. Nazia.
4. ' On the basis above report/ complaint, the present case was registered. Subsequently the applicant upon coming to know appeared at Sohrab Goth Police Station, where he was arrested.
5. Thereafter the police submitted charge sheet on 14-10-2006, before the Court having jurisdiction.
6. The trial Court framed the charge on 4-4-2007. The bail application, filed on behalf of the applicant which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 20-6-2007. Hence the instant bail application is moved before this Court.
7. ' It has contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to mala fide intention on the part of complainant. It has further been contended that applicant was married to the complainant about more than three years ago, subsequently, the applicant found the complainant to be a loose character lady and she had illegal and restrict contacts/relations with a series of males as she occasionally left the house of applicant without his permission, consent and knowledge. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that later on the applicant along with the complainant shifted to Karachi, however she did not change her attitude and used to leave the house of applicant without his knowledge, consent and permission, thereafter the applicant came to know that complainant is living with Shakeel and Nadeem at Bhawalnagar, as such the applicant lodged F.I.R. No, 162 of 2006 under section 16 of Zina Ordinance with new Karachi Industrial Area Police Station. Learned counsel argued that due to loose character the applicant on demand of complainant divorced her, therefore the relationship as husband and wife between the complainant and the applicant had been ended. Learned counsel further argued the prosecution has totally failed to establish any case of any nature whatsoever against the applicant, on the contrary the above F.I.R. Has been lodged just to harass and restrain the applicant from initiating any proceeding against the complainant. Learned counsel also stressed his arguments upon unexplained delay of 17 days in lodging of F.I.R. He has also averred that after framing of the charge on 4-4-2007 since last four months no progress has been made in the trial. He has relied upon the cases reported as Raza Muhammad and another v. The State (2005 YLR 1585), Roshan Lai v. The State and another (2005 M LD 1339) and Liaquat Ali v. The State (2005 M LD 1974) in support of his contentions.
8. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf the State has opposed the bail plea of the applicant, stating that the name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. With specific role of selling of complainant to one Tariq who along with co-accused have allegedly committed zina with the complainant.
9. ' I have heard the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record brought before me.
10. ' From the perusal of record it appears that the applicant himself admitted that he had married with complainant three years ago. The applicant has levelled the allegation of loose character upon the complainant, alleging that she had illegal and unlawful contacts/relations with a series of males and on various occasions she left the house of the applicant without his permission, consent or knowledge and he remained in admonishing the complainant to refrain her character for about more than three years. This plea of the applicant is totally unbelievable because for the reason that as to why the applicant waited for more than three years and remained in looking the loose activities as an aspectant. In this regard Surah-e-Nisa of Holy Quran is clear that in case husband looks his wife to be involved in unlawful activities or he Suspects that his wife is to be a loose character, then husband should admonish her firstly, if she does not obey the advice of her husband and avoid the same, then husband keeps his bed separately for a period of one monthly course. In such situation to, the wife failed to refrain her previous activities, then the husband has right to pronounce her three Talaqs. In the instant case applicant himself admitted that he remained silent for a period of three years in looking unlawful activities of his wife and he divorced the complainant on her demand. The allegation against the applicant is that he being husband sold out his wife (complainant) to one Tariq who along with other accused committed zina with her. In such circumstances, it will not be out of place to mention here that Islam makes the supremacy of husband over his wife, because the wife depends upon husband, therefore, it is a duty of husband to maintain his wife properly and guard over her, but in the present case the role of the applicant being hiteband of complainant is totally different. The case-law sited by the learned counsel for the applicant is quitely distinguishable with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons no case for bail is made out, therefore I am not inclined to grant to his bail application Resultantly, present bail application is hereby dismissed. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.
12. ' It is made clear that the above observations are tentative in nature, which shall not be influenced upon the trial Court at the eve of trial of this case.
13. ' Cr. Bail Application No,671 of 2007 stands dispose of.