1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioners who are charged under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 5-3-1984 whereby bail granted to them earlier by the Sessions Juge was cancelled.
2. ' The petitioners alongwith two others are charged by Muhammad Sabir the father of Mst. Majida said to be aged 14/15 years who was abducted and raped on 13-1-1984 and the days following. The statement of Mst. Majida was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. She was cross-examined at that stage on behalf of the petitioners and others. She was medically examined also and two abrasions were found on her thighs. The hymen was absent. The swabs did not show stains or presence of semen. Mst. Majida charged the two petitioners directly for having raped her and Abdul Qayyum for having abducted her.
3. ' The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, considered it a case for further inquiry and admitted to ball the petitioners and others charged for the offence.
4. An application was then moved by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail. The learned Judge in the High Court re-examined the facts and held that reasonable grounds exist so far as implication A of the two petitioners was concerned and the case of the other two was distinguishable from them. Hence their bail was cancelled but that of their companions was maintained.
5. ' From the F.I.R. And the medical report the age of Mst. Majida appears to be 15 years. She has alleged her abduction and rape by the two petitioners. The presence of two abrasions on her thighs has been taken to be a supporting material so far as her allegation is concerned. It is true that Wajid's name does not appear in the F.I.R. But it does appear in the statement of Mst. Majida, recorded after her recovery and she has charged him of having committed once rape on her.
6. ' We find that the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and the exercise of discretion does not merit further examination or interference at or level. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.