1. It is contended that since Writ Petition No. 3433/81 was filed by tie petitioner in this Court and is pending, the subject-matter of which is almost identical to the present case, hence this petition has been filed in this Court.
2. It is argued that petitioner No. Is the legally-wedded wife of petitioner No. 2. A photostat copy of the nikahnama has been placed on file. According to the nikahnama the nikah was performed on the 28th May, 198i. The first information report was recorded on the 13th July, 1981. It is mentioned therein that the occurrence took place 5-6 months ago. No doubt the date of the nikahnama precedes the date of registration of the case but it doe's not precede the time of occurrence stated in the first information report.
3. It is further contended that the petitioners had in fact entered into shari nikah somewhere in the month of January, 1 981 and thus it may be deemed to have preceded even the alleged period of occurrence. The reason for not getting the nikahnama registered has been given in the petition to save money and expenditure for getting the nikahnama regis--tered. This argument does not sound good because the persons who marry and decide to live jointly can easily afford a few rupees to get the nikahnama registered. The fees of the nikahkhawan must have been paid. Only the fees of the Nikah L.Rtegistrar icinamed to be paid. Be that as it may, the most important feature of this case is that it is mentioned in the First Information Report that petitioner No. 1 was medically examined and she was found to be pregnant of about 21J or 3 months' period, which period also precedes the nikahnama.
4. In the circumstances, no case for pre-arrest bail is made out. Rejected.