' Muhammad Ilyas petitioner stands charged under section 10/11/7/79 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 380, P. P. C.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Mst. Parveen Akhtar, wife of Badar Munir complainant was deceitfully taken away by Mst. Inayat Bibi from her house and was later on delivered to the present petitioner who criminally assaulted her. She is further alleged to have taken away two boxes and cash amounting to Rs, 9,300 and also a Tape Recorder while leaving the house.
3. During investigation Mst. Inayat Bibi has been found to be innocent. Mst. Parveen Akhtar was produced before a Magistrate where she recorded her statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. On 6th August, 1983, the learned Magistrate passed an order for challaning Mst. Parveen Akhtar as an accused instead of citing her as a witness. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :- "Her statement denotes that she was not forced to accompany the accused but the very collection of the valuable articles is an unchallenged proof of her being a consenting party. In these circumstances, she cannot be cited as P. W. But shall rank as an accused. Mst. Parveen Akhtar be taken into custody under section 10 of the Zina Ordinance and be sent to the judicial lock-up."
4. In the above circumstances, Mst. Parveen Akhtar was challaned alongwith the present petitioner and is stated to be on bail. Mst. Inayat Bibi who is alleged to have deceitfully taken away Mst.
Parveen Akhtar from her house has not been challaned by the Police as in their opinion she was innocent.
5. Bail is sought on the ground that it is a case of false implication and that her statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. Is in conflict with the F. I. R. And further that her conduct in leaving the house with two suit-cases, cash and a tape recorder throws a doubt on the prosecution story. It is further stated that the medical evidence also does not show that any force was used on her in the alleged commission of rape. The position has undergone a change with the challaning of the abductee, it is added.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail. He stated that the petitioner is named in the F. I. R. As also in the statement made by the abductee under section 164, Cr. P. C.
7. The petitioner is said to be in the judicial lock-up since about 3 months. The investigation is complete and the circumstances narrated above make it to be a case of further inquiry.
Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs, 7,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Cantt., Lahore.