1. ' In continuation of my order, dated 12-9-1983 the police record indicates that previously the present complainant through her son had started civil litigation for judicial separation against Mst.
2. Margret Nazli petitioner. This civil litigation was decided on 26-2-1983. An issue had been framed in the said litigation to the effect that as to whether or not Mst. Margret Nazli petitioner had committed adultery. The finding of the Court was that the issue could not be proved as against Mst. Margret Nazli petitioner. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that since the complainant side did not succeed in establishing adultery as against Mst. Margret Nazli petitioner in the civil proceedings they have now falsely implicated her in criminal proceedings for having committed Zina with Master Yousaf Masih petitioner. It appears that the litigation is going on between Mst.
3. Margret Nazli petitioner and her husband and the relations between them are strained. The complainant in this case is the mother-in-law of Mst. Margret Nazli petitioner. Master Yousaf Masih petitioner is stated to be the person with whom Mst. Margret Nazli petitioner is residing. This allegation is being levelled in the background of strained relations and litigation between the husband and Mst. Margret Nazli petitioner and the background of this litigation had shown at least on the civil side that the complainant party could not establish adultery on the part of Mst. Margret Nazli petitioner. Since this is the background, in my view a case is made out for the grant of bail to Mst. Margret Nazli petitioner as well as Master Yousaf petitioner. It is ordered accordingly. Both the aforesaid petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs,5,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura. This petition stands disposed of. .