A case under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered by the Police Station of Rabwah on 6th May, 1982, at 3-20 p.m. Against the petitioner, his father and uncle at the instance of Riaz complainant.
2. According to the F. I. R. The complainant was married with Mst. Rasoolan vide Nikahnama dated 3rd November, 1968. Six months before the petitioner developed illicit relations with his wife about which the petitioner came to know and on that account he came to his village Sangrah alongwith his wife. Thereafter the complainant went to Lalian to earn his livelihood. On his return he found Mst.
Rasoolan was missing. On his inquire he was apprised by Rahman and Mallah, who observed Mathella petitioner and Mst. Rasoolan boarding a bus bound for Chiniot. The complainant on checking found that his wife had taken alongwith her articles, a golden nasbi weighing three mashas and a pair of golden ear-rings weigning 1-- tolas.
3. Mst. Rasoolan was recovered from the house of the petitioner on 19th May, 1982. The petitioner is stated to have filed a suit for a declaration on 12th April, 1982 that Mst. Rasoolan was his wedded wife, in addition to which he had sought an injunction restraining Riaz com--plainant from interfering with their matrimonial life. Mst. Rasoolan appeared in that suit as defendant No. 1. She made a statement to the effect that she was wedded wife of Mathella petitioner whom she married three years ago and from that wedlock she was having a male child. She denied that she was ever married to Riaz complainant, defendant No. 2 in that suit.
4. Mathella petitioner and Mst. Rasoolan were challaned in the aforesaid criminal case. She was bailed out while petitioner's application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang by his order dated 3rd July, 1982.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in this petition for bail relied upon a Nikahnama between the petitioner and Mst. Rasoolan Bibi registered on 10th November, 1981.
6. The learned counsel for the State has relied upon a Nikahnama to the effect that Riaz complainant was married to Mst. Rasoolan on 3rd November, 1968. This Nikahnama is also a registered one. In view of the Nikahnama relied upon by both the parties, on the previous date of hearing, the Investigating Officer report of the Handwriting Expert the impression marked as Exh. P.
A/1 on the Nikahnama dated 3rd November, 1968 was not clear enough to permit of a comparison in its minor detail but being of different type it was different from the right and left thumb- impression of Mst. Rasoolan on the simple paper (Exhs. P. B/I to P. B/3), duly attested by the Resident Magistrate Rabwah.
7. In this state of affairs for a tentative assessment of the facts as to the grant of bail at this stage it cannot be said positively that whose version is correct, therefore, the matter falls as to the guilt of the petitioner due for further inquiry so as to attract the provision of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. The petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that as to the case registered the police intends to add section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 as well. So this order will be covering this case as to this addition as well as any other addition arising out of the case as registered.