' This bail petition is filed on behalf of Muhammad Hayat, petitioner, who stands arrested in a case registered at Police Station Jampur under Article 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, as his earlier bail petition was declined bySessions Judge, Rajanpur on 12th June, 1983.
2. Muhammad Kalim, complainant, reported at Police Station Jampur on 30th April, 1983 that the petitioner was posted as an A.S.I. At Police Station Jampur in the year 1982 and during his stay there he cultivated illicit connection with Mst. Nasreen, his wife, mother of three children. It is further alleged that in the month of November, 1982 he enticed her away alongwith three children, namely, Muhammad Jamil aged 10/11 years, Naurin Kausar aged 9/10 years and Munazza Naushin aged 3 years, in a wagon No, 6790/VR. The complainant further alleged that when he approached the petitioner for the restoration of his wife the latter told him that he would restore his children to him provided he.Gives Talaq to Mst. Nasreen. Having failed in his efforts to get his wife and children back, the complainant lodged an F.I.R. With Jampur police on 30th April, 1983. The petitioner is stated to have been arrested on 26th May, 1983 and is presently lodged in judicial lock-up.
3. Earlier to this Mst. Nasreen, the abductee in this case had filed Writ Petition No,676/1983 praying that S.H.O. Police Station Jampur, be restrained from harassing her, I disposed of that writ petition by my order, dated 14th May, 1983 observing that since the case was under investigation this Court cannot interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. After the disposal of that writ petition Mst. Nasreen allegedly went and joined the investigation but she was arrested, and has since been allowed bail. At the time of her arrest her children were handed over to Muhammad Kalim complainant, their father on 29th May, 1983 under the orders of the Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that there is no direct evidence to show that the petitioner ever committed Zina with aforesaid abductee Mst. Nasreen.
He further stated that Mst. Nasreen had obtained. Ex parte divorce through Court vide judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1983 by Family Judge, Sahiwal. He next contended that taking the facts on their face value at the most an offence under section 16 of the Ordinance is made out which is punishable with 7 years' R.I. Which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore it is concluded net there do not exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of committing Zina with the abductee.
5. As against this the learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner is an influential person who misused his official position while posted as A.S.I. At Police Station Jampur and abducted Mst. Nasreen and kidnapped her children to Mian Channu. He further stated that before his arrest the petitioner was formerly posted as A.S.I. At Police Station Harappa and now at Sahiwal.
6. I. Have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I find that there is no direct evidence whatsoever to the effect that the petitioner was seen committing Zina with Mst. Nasreen. However, there is statement qf Muhammad Jamil son of the complainant that his mother (the abductee) before her arrest remained in a house with the petitioner but to my mind it is not sufficient to conclude prima facie that the petitioner committed Zina with her. Again, it needs further inquiry as to whether the facts of the case attract the provisions of section 10 or 16 of the Ordinance.
7. In this view of the matter, I allow this petition. The petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs,10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar of this Court as it is stated that the sureties apprehended danger to their lives at Jampur where the atmosphere is hostile to the petitioner.