The learned State counsel after going through the police record, states that case F. I. R. No. 30 dated 2nd March, 1981 was registered with P. S. Sangla Hill on the complaint of Muhammad Hayat who is the brother of the husband of the abductee namely, Mst. Sakina Bibi. This incident related to an occurrence in the month of February, 1981. It is further stated that there are four accused in this case and amongst them the present petitioner finds mention. This F. I. R. Was registered under section 10/11 of the Zina Hudood Ordinance, 1979. Gulsher petitioner in this case moved a bail application which came up for hearing before Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura who vide his order dated 2nd June, 1982 dismissed the same. The present bail application has now been moved before this Court. The learned State counsel informs that the challan in this case has been sub--mitted before the trial Court on 22nd July, 1981.
2. The learned State counsel after consulting the record of P. S. Tu--lamba, District Multan in case F.
I. R. No. 63, dated 6th May, 1981, submits that this F. I. R. Was registered at the instance of the father of the abductee named Soofi Khan Muhammad in respect of an incident which allegedly took place on the night between l Ith/12th April, 1981 In this case, eight persons have been named as accused persons and the petitioner is named in the F. I. R. As one of them. This case has been registered under section 10/11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and Mst. Sakina Bibi abductee is also an accused in this case as she is already a married lady. It is submitted that all the accused in the F. I.
R. No. 63 of P. S. Tulamba including Mst. Sakina Bibi and the petitioner have been bailed out. A copy of the bail granting order by Mr. Muhammad Arshad Khan, Sessions Judge, Multan dated 2nd August, 1982 is on record as Annexure ---D---.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State. It stands transpired that in view of the subsequent development resulting in the registration of case F. I. R. No. 63, P. S. Tulamba the prosecutrix in this case is herself an accused and she has been allowed bail in that case: It is submitted that this is not a case of abduction or rape but a case of elopement on the part of Mst. Sakina Bibi, the prosecutrix, Reliance is also being placed on the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before A. C., Sialkot in a complaint case under section 107, Cr. P. C. And also her state--ment recorded by A. C., Sheikhupura under section 164, Cr. P. C. In these statements, she had denied the allegation of having been abducted by the petitioner and also denied the allegation, of her being subjected to zina. The learned State counsel, in the circumstances of the case, submits that as the facts stand revealed, this is a case of elopement and not abduction. I have considered the submissions of both sides. I noticed that the prosecutrix in this case had at least at two stages, before A. C., Sialkot as well as A. C Sheikhupura, denied the version given in the F. I. R. The circumstance that in the subsequent F. I. R. No. 63 lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, she has been named as being privy in the whole matter and is an accuse in that case, the version of abduction would not seem to have much force. In so far as the allegation of zina is concerned, in case F. I. R. No. 30 there is no evidence proper brought to my notice to connect him with the allege crime. It is stated that there was evidence in so far as F. I. R. No. 63 of p. S. Tulamba is concerned but in that case the petitioner has already bee admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge and that is not in controversy before me. In view of the circumstances there are no reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offence charged. He is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.
10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Sheikhupura.
4. Nothing said in this order would influence the mind of the trial Court in either way.