This is a petition for bail submitted by Mushtaq alias Billo petitioner who is involved in offences punishable under sections 11, 16 and 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, arising out of F. I. R. No. 46 dated the 11th March, 1982. It is alleged that on 24th February. 1982 i.e. About 18/19 days prior to the lodging of the F. I. R., the petitioner abducted Mst. Farzana aged about 14/15 years with the aid and abetment of his co-accused namely Sharif, Sughran and Zubaidab and subsequently subjected her to Zina.
2. The co-accused of the petitioner have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is behind the bars since 18th March, 1982.
3. The statement of Mst. Farzana alias Papoo, the alleged abductee, was also recorded under section 164 Cr. P: C. On 18th March, 1982. In that statement she disclosed that she was subjected to torture by the Police and that the aforementioned co-accused had absolutely no hand in her abduction and that she accompanied the petitioner to Kanganpur.
4. After she made the statement in the above terms under section 164, Cr. P. C. She was also arrested as co-accused and section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was added. Subse--quently, however, she was released on bail.
5. It is noteworthy that in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. She expressed the desire that she did not want to go to the house of her parents as she apprehended danger to her life.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the offence was allegedly committed on 24th February, 1982 but the matter was reported to the Police as late as 11 th March, 1982 and no plausible explanation has peen offered in the F. I. R. For this inordinate delay. It is also maintained that there is nothing on the records to suggest that Mst. Farzana, the alleged abductee, was aged 14/15 years as alleged in the F. I. R. Arid that in fact slit happened to be 18 years old. It is also alleged that there is no evidence of Zina except the statement of the abductee recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. But she being a co-accused, her statement could not be used against the petitioner.
7. The petitioner, as observed earlier, is behind the bars since 18th March, 1982 but his trial has not so far commenced. It is alleged on his behalf that his challan has not even been submitted so far.
8. In the light of above circumstances and without prejudice to the A merits of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one surety is the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Lahore Cantt.