A case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered on 17August, 1982 by the Police Station of Gojra against the petitioner and Mst. Saidan, at the instance of Sardar Muhammad complainant, the husband of the lady. It is stated in the F. I. R.
That the complainant is a mat maker by vocation. About three and a quarter of month, before the registration of the case the complainant was sleeping alongwith his wife Mst. Saidan, Yasin and Abdul Ghafoor his nephews, and one Asghar Ali in the Ahata of his house in Chak No. 425/J. B. After mid-night he was awakened by the nephew Abdul Gbafoor, who informed him that Mst. Saidan and Muhammad Hussain petitioner were committing Zina in a room. He got up alongwith the aforesaid Yasin and Asghar Ali. The complainant alongwith his com--panions peeped into the room and observed that his wife and Muhammad Hussain petitioner were actually committing Zina, Abdul Ghafoor imme--diately bolted the door from outside and raised noise which attracted Abdul Hameed, Muneer Masih, Muhammad Iqbal Chowkidar and Ch. Sana Ullah. They were apprised of the affair by the complainant. Muneer Masih was sent to call upon the Lambardar who also came there. He unbolted the door on which Mst. Saidan came out of the room and from there went to the house of the Mukhtar Mochi and then to her own brother Muhammad Siddiq's house.
Muhammad Hussain petitioner also came out and sought forgiveness from the Lambardar and the other per--sons present there. Muhammad Hussain petitioner was let off on the pro--posal of the Lambardar that the matter so involved was to be decided by a Panchayat. The complainant was prevented from making a report by the co-villagers. It is also stated by the complainant that the petitioner and his co-accused Mst. Saidan, Abdur Rahim and Abdul Hannan, brothers of Mst.th Saidan, waged an obstacle when the complainant intend--ed to marry his daughter as a result of which he could not marry her.
2. The petitioner made an application for bail which came to be decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh who refused him bail vide his order dated 16th October, 1982.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F. I. R. Was lodged three months after the incident. He has further sub--mitted that Mst. Saidan co-accused was not medically examined so as to connect her with the alleged incident. He has maintain that there existed a dispute over the marriage of two daughters of the complainant. The petitioner wanted the hand of one of the daughters for his own son and the other for his brother's son. He bad the support of Mst.
Saidan co-accused but not that of the complainant. According to the learned counsel, the case as set out, does not appear as plausible firstly because the lady being of advanced age having four children will not go to such an extent and secondly since the place where the incident is alleged to have taken place was accessible to any person as the doors were open, therefore, it can not be taken that the person intending to do such a thing will be doing it without any precaution. The learned counsel has further submit--ted that a complaint had been made against the A. S. I.
Namely Rahmat Ali of the same Police Station that he had taken Rs. 1,000 from him for sparing him as to the trouble he was likely to undergo in connection with another application having been made against the petitioner as to the dis--pute about the marriage of the daughter of the complainant. The learned counsel has repeatedly argued that he went to the extent of blaming his wife motivated by the dispute as to the marriage of his daughter.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail application on the ground that the incident stands witnessed by the persons as named in the F. I. R. According to him a husband will not ordinarily go to the extent of condemning his own wife with such a-- accusation simply be-- cause there exist other sort of domestic disputes. In view of the allegations made in the F. I. R. The petitioner is not entitled to bail.
5. Keeping in view the belated registration of the cases well as the absence of the medical examination, the petitioner is enlarged on 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, Gojra.