1. ' On the statement of Ghulam Farid son of Gulzar, real brother of Mst. Mumtaz Begum a case under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinace, VII of 1979, has been registered against the petitioner, Allah Ditta, Mst. Irshad, his daughter and Mst. Rajjan, his sister, for abducting Mst. Mumtaz Begum and then petitioner committing Zina with her. A case has been registered at Police Station Ahmadyar, District Sahiwal. Mst. Mumtaz Begum is also an accused in the above-stated criminal case. Both are confined in jail. Mst. Mumtaz Begum was granted bail on 29-7-1984 but she refused to avail of this concession. Petitioner, Allah Ditta, however, was refused bail by learned Sessions. Judge, Sahiwal on 26-8-1984. Learned Sessions Judge, in his order, has observed:- "It is stated that the petitioner is in the habit of abducting the women and if he is released on bail, he would repeat the offence.
2. ' Due to the conduct of Mst. Mumtaz who had refused to be released on bail after she was granted bail, it appears that the petitioner would repeat the offence of Zina with Mst. Mumtaz Begum. As such the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail at this stage. His application is dismissed."
3. ' Mst. Mumtaz Begum, the abductee has already filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against Riaz Ahmad, her husband which is sub-judice before Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura. In the plaint, copy whereof has been placed on record, it has been stated that due to the mal-treatment of her husband, She had taken refuge in the house of her maternal-aunt. Serious allegations have been made against her husband. Suit for divorce is still pending. Except her own statement recorded by Police during the course of investigation, there is no credible/convincing evidence connecting the petitioner with offence of abduction of Zina. Observations made by learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner is in the habit of abducting women, is not borne by record. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has failed to produce any case pending or decided against the petitioner showing him to have been involved either in case of abduction or Zina prior to the one he is facing charge now. Only three cases have been listed against the petitioner, one falls under section 325 P.P.C., the other under section 14 of Act XX of 1965 and yet another under section 342/148/149 P.P.C.
4. These cases are pending in Courts and in none of them decision adverse to the petitioner has so far been recorded. Obviously, the ground which weighed heavily against the petitioner is found non-existing. The statement of Mst. Mumtaz Begum recorded by Police in the capacity of an accused person, has yet to stand the test of scrutiny before the trial Court in regard to its evidentiary value and legal effect. Bail cannot be refused as a measure of punishment. In case, the petitioner was found guilty after his trial by a Court of competent jurisdiction, adequate punishment proportionate to the crime committed will be meted out to him. In these cricumstances, it may not promote the cause of rule of law or justice to let the petitioner suffer incarceration in jail, Petitioner, consequently, is allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Pakpattan.