1. This is an application for bail of the petitioner against whom a case is registered under section 10/11 of the Zina Ordinance on 10 September 1981 at Police Station Shorkot, District Jhang, alongwith two others i. e. His brother, namely Muhammad Haneef and mother, namely, Mst. Zohran, who is already on bail. The main accused, in the instant case, against whom besides the allegation of abduction there is also the allega--tion of rape, is Muhammad Haneef co-accused, who is not petitioner before me. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the allegation against him is that he alongwith his mother and brother, abducted the girl Mst. 1Numtaz on a scooter driven by him. In the F. I. R. This is the accusation against the petitioner that he was seen driving the scooter on which sat Mst. Mumtaz- as well as the main accused when the girl was abducted. The witnesses of 'the abduction named in the F. I. R. Are Muhammad Afzal, Jeewan, Nawaz, Khan and Ahmad Nawaz.
2. Affidavits of all these witnesses have been placed on the record in which each of them had stated that he did not witness the abduction of the girl i. e. Did not witness the present petitioner driving the scooter through which Mst. Mumtaz was abducted by his brother, the main accused. However, there is statement of Mst. Mumtaz in the field. Mst. Mumtaz was recovered from the house of the petitioner, his brother and mother and her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. In that statement she alleges that she had been abducted by the petitioner, Mst. Zohran and Muhammad Haneef. The petitioner and Muhammad Haneef are cousins of Mst. Mumtaz and Mst.
3. Zohran is her Phuphi. After the abduction she stated that it was Muhammad Haneef do-accused who had committed rape on her. There is no such allegation as against the present petitioner. Mst.
4. Zohran has already been admitted to bail vide my order dated 19th December, 1981 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3383-B of 1981. At that stage the applica--tion for bail of the present petitionerth was dismissed. Subsequently, he moved another application for bail, namely, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6d4/B of 1982 in which it was contended that the case of the present petitioner was pending trial since 3rd January, 1982 in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Jhang and despite the fact that at that time seven months had passed and yet the trial was not held. In that application I again did not allow bail to him but vide my order dated 7th April. 1982 directed that the petitioner may move an application for bail on this fresh ground if so advised, before the trial Court where the matter was pending. Now in this fresh application for bail it is contended that the petitioner had moved an application for bail in compliance with that order before the Sessions Court on three fresh grounds namely, (1) that all the five witnesses named in the F. I. R. Had submitted affidavits which have been placed on the record, to the effect that they bad not seen the abduction (2) at the case of the petitioner was identical to that of Mst. Zohran who has already been admitted to bail. The reasoning is that the eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence except Mst. Mumtaz are not supporting the prosecution version and there is no allegation of rape as against the petitioner.
5. Furthermore, Mst. Mumtaz may be naming the petitioner only because he happened to be the brother of the main accused and living in the same house with the mother; lastly (3) that although the case was registered against the petitioner on 10 September, 1981 and the challan was sent up on 3rd January, 1982, the trial has not yet commenced. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, did not consider these grounds pro--perly but dismissed the application for bail of the petitioner mainly for the reason that the High Court had not allowed bail to him. He has urged these three fresh grounds before me. The five witnesses named in the F. I. R.
6. Who are stated to have witnessed the alleged occurrence of abduction, are not supporting the prosecution version. The prosecution version is being supported only by Mst. Mumtaz in respect of the part ascribed to the petitioner in her statement under section 164. Cr. P. C. She does not level any allegation of rape as against the present petitioner and finally Mst. Zohran, who is mother of the present petitioner as well as the main accused, had been admitted to bail not only for the reason that she was a woman but also for the reason that the part ascribed to her was of assisting in the abduction of the girl and it is the same part which has been ascribed to the present petitioner. Along with these grounds there is also the third ground that the trial has not yet been held although the challan had beer sent up in the month of January, 1982. On these three fresh grounds which have been argued before me, I am of the view, that a cast for bail is made out so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Consequently, I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 ( Rupees ten thousand only ) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner Jhang. The trial Court, in the instant case, i. e. Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, is hereby directed to bold the trial of the petitioner and co-accused which is pending in his Court as expeditiously as possible. This petition is disposed of.