Mahboob, complainant, reported at Police Station Pakpattan on 6-4-1983, that about 1J months before registration of the case his brother Usman's were Mst. Zamuda begum who had a liaison with Muhammad Iqbel Rajput eloped with him and also took away certain ornaments. She was stated to have been seen going in wagon No.7778 --Karachi, by P.Ws. Bashir and Abdul Sattar.
During investigation Mst. Zamuda Begum appeared before the Investigating Officer in the company of the complainant who brought her from her father's house on 26-5-1983, after she had obtained an order of pre-arrest interim bail from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
Her bail was later confirmed on 29-5-1983. The petitioner was arrested on 11-6-1983. Mst. Zamuda Begum, the abductee (co-accused) stated that she was taken away by Muhammad lqbal and 'Shabbir Ahmad (the petitioner) to Sind where both of them had raped her. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of bail before Additional Sessions Judge, but the same was declined on 26-6-1983, for the reason that allegation of rape had been levelled against him by Mst. Zamuda Begum, co-accused, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is solitary statement of the abductee (co-accused) against the petitioner and as such the petitioner is not liable for Hadd under Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. He next contends that her statement which is of exculpatory character is not admissible against the petitioner, her co- accused. He further states that in fact the abductee had eloped with Muhammad lqbal, her paramour, as is apparent from the initial report made by the complainant. A.S.I. Murid Hussain who has investigated the case submits that the statement of Mst. Zamuda Begum was not found to be true because in that she had made an attempt to save lqbal, her paramour. As against this the learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
3. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and find that the case of the petitioner at the most is one of Tazir and that too based on solitary statement of the abductee, his co-accused. It is certainly a debatable legal point as to whether Mst. Zamuda's statement in the circumstances is admissible p against the petitioner or not? In this view of the matter I find that the petitioner has a good case for the grant of bail. Consequently this petition is allowed. The petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Pakpattan.