' Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is involved in a case under Articles 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. He has moved this petition for bail.
' The brief facts of the case are that on 10th June, 1984 at 2 p.m. Ghulam Hussain committed the murder of his real sister Mst. Majidan in the area of Chak No,310/J.B. The motive for the murder was that the deceased had eloped with Muhammad Ashraf petitioner. During the investigation of the murder case Muhammad Rafiq, Fazal Elahi and Muhammad Hanif made statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 24th June, 1984 that three/four months earlier Muhammad Ashraf petitioner had enticed away Mst. Majidan and had admitted before a Panchayat that he had been committing Zina with her.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Muhammad Hanif and Fazal Elahi had sworn affidavits to the effect that the petitioner had not made any confession before them and they had also appeared in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and owned the contents of the affidavits. It is further submitted that there is no evidence at all to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences under Articles 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He concedes that there is no direct evidence of the commission of Zina.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. Fazal Elahi and Muhammad Hanif appeared before the police fourteen days after the occurrence and stated that three/four months earlier the petitioner had taken away Mst. Majidan, but in the F.I.R. It is stated that she had eloped with the petitioner twenty days before her murder. In the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge it has been stated that Fazal Elahi and Muhammad Hanif appeared in Court and verified the contents of their affidavits. In that view of the matter when there is not direct evidence of the commission of Zina a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. Consequently, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Gojra.
' Office report has been perused. This matter is being taken up on the judicial side. Mr. Inayat Ullah Cheema, counsel for the petitioner is present. Mr. Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate-General, has appeared on call.
' Bail was allowed to Muhammad Ashraf petitioner in case F.I.R. No,92, dated 10-6-1984, Police Station Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh. He was invovled under Articles 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on the basis of statements made by three P.Ws. During the investigation. Sections 302 and 324, P.P.C. Were not mentioned in the bail order as the petitioner was not charged wit these offences. The observation of the Assistant Commissioner that section 302/324, P.P.C. Are mentioned in the F.I.R. "against the petitioner" is incorrect. Allegation of murder is only against Ghulam Hussain who has been named as the sole assailant of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that section 302/324, P.P.C. Have been wrongly mentioned on the jail warrant. He futher submits that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner so far as the charge of murder is concerned, therefore, section 302/324, P.P.C. Be either added or a fresh order be passed for the release of the petitioner in these offences. The learned Additional Advocate-General wants time to peruse the record to find out if there is any evidence against the petitioner on the charge of murder. To be listed on a date in the third week of February, 1985. The Investigating Officer may be summoned with record.
' Meanwhile, the petitioner is admitted to interim bail for offences under section 302/324, P.P.C. In the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Gojra.