Rasul Bakhsh and Karim Bakhsh petitioners alongwith three others were reported against for having abducted Mat. Taj Mai who is were of Abdul Khaliq complainant on 11-9-1984 and committed rape with her in a nearby cotton field, through F.I.R. Lodged on the same day at Police Station Kot Mithan under section 10/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 1481452/ 323/149, P.P.C. The two petitioners as well as their co-accused were arrested, by the local police.
2. According to the prosecution Abdul Khaliq complainant was suspected of having illicit connection with the were of Ashiq Hussain co-accused of the 'petitioners, and the complainant party looked for taking revenge. On the day of occurrence, the complainant was present at his shop and heard cries emanating from his house and rushed there. He was told by Mst. Sharam Khatoon his mother-in-law that Tattle before his arrival, the two petitioners alongwith three others, had forcibly abducted Mst. Taj Mai, complainant's were. The complainant alongwith his father-in- law Abdullah pursued them. At a distance of 13 Furlong he found Ashiq Hussain the principal accused in the case committing rape with Mst. Taj Alai while the two petitioners, with Khadim Hussain and Rahim Bakhsh were standing nearby armed with sticks. The complainant tried to rescue his were whereupon Karim Bakhsh petitioner inflicted Soti blow on his head thereafter, the petitioners as well as their co-accused decamped from the scene, and Mst. Taj Mai was brought to her house.
3. The petitioners have since been challaned to Court and it is stated that evidence as many as 4 witnesses have been recorded. The bail petition moved before the trial Court by the petitioner has been declined, hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State and also perused the record.
5. Admittedly there is no allegation, against the petitioners that they committed rape with Mst. Taj Mai, therefore, I am of the view that it required further inquiry whether they had actually participated in the occurrence or not? As I find that case against the petitioners is one of further inquiry, therefore, commencement of trial cannot be regarded as around for refusing the bail to the petitioners. Consequently I allow this petition. Petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Rajanpur.