1. This revision petition has arisen-out of order dated 16th March, 1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat in a matter arising out of a bail order. .
2. Mst. Nasim Akhter was allowed bail on 21st February, 1983 under the Hudood Ordinance case against her and one Nazeer. Her parents presented the surety bonds and as the Robkar went to the Jail for her release, she refused to come out on the ground that she would not accompany her parents and would like her husband Nazeer or his partymen to stand surety for her. Her other relations were allowed to submit fresh bail bonds. One Muhammad Ashraf, her relation from paternal side also offered the bail bonds but it seems that she refused to come out from the jail, exept on the condition mentioned above. Thereafter, finally on 16th March, 1983 the learned Additional Sessions Judge resolved the controversy by saying that the bail bonds may be furnished by a person related to her within the prohibited degree, with whom she may also agree to go. Mst.
3. Nasim Akhtar had also declined to go to Darul Aman.
4. Mst. Nasim Akhtar has come up in revision against this order praying that her husband or any of his relations be allowed to stand surety for her. There seems to have been a confusion in this case from the very beginning i.e. It is not the custody of a woman of age which is to be given to the surety after her release on bail. It is a simple, question of her liberty to which she becomes entitled to on furnishing surety bond which is a condition for allowing bail to her. A surety cannot claim her custody because this would then forfeit the purpose of bail. It may be different in the case of a minor. Since in this case, her marriage with Nazeer is a controversial matter because according to her parents, it was a marriage within the prohibited degree i.e. Mst. Shamim Akhter having married her uncle Nazeer (Khalu), therefore, he should not be allowed to stand surety for her. Moreover, he was himself an accused in this case finding at this stage about her marriage is not called for.
5. However keeping in view the concept of the Hudood Law it is in the fitness of things, that her surety should not be that person who may later hold out the cancellation of his surety bond as a threat to her and thus induce anti coerce her to lead immoral life. It is, therefore, correct that her surety 8 should be a person within the prohibited degree or any such person who may not be related to her and is held in high esteem by the people of the locality where he lives. Under these circumstances. I modify the order of the trial Court to the above extent with a direction to the parties to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Khan Muhammad Arshad Khan) on 5th May, 1983. 1t will be for the trial Court to satisfy itself that the surety who is not related to the petitioner will not lead her astray and is a responsible and respectable citizen.
6. Record of the case be returned.