Khalid petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under Articles 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The case was registered on 1st July, 1986 on the report of Nazir Ahmed complainant wherein he alleged that three years back he married his daughter Mst. Kausar Parveen with Manzur Ahmad.
Khalid (petitioner herein) developed illicit relations with her through his paternal-aunt Mst. Rani. On 25-6-1986 at 7/8 p.m. Mst. Kausar Parveen went out for easing herself in the company of Mst. Rani but did not return. He searched for her when Asghar Ali and Ali informed him that they had seen Mst. Kausar in a car with Mst. Rani, Khalid and Javid Iqbal.
3. On 16-7-1986 Mst. Kausar Parveen made a statement before the Illaqa Magistrate that Mst. Rani was on visiting terms with her, twenty days back she went out with her for answering the call of nature, on the way Khalid and Jaidi were present with a car, Mst. Rani asked her to get into the car but she declined on which Jaidi and Khalid petitioner took out Chhuris and pushed her in the car under threats of death; they took her to Depalpur and then to Okara Railway Station where Jaidi and Rani left her and then Khalid took her to Karachi by train where he kept her for 4/5 days and committed Zina with her. Then he again brought her to Okara and then to Lahore. He got her thumb-impressions on a number of papers and took her to Courts from where she was sent to Dar-ul-Aman.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the F.I.R. Clearly show that it was a case of elopement; except Mst. Kausar Parveen there is no eye-witness of Zina; her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Js not entitled to any credence because in her earlier statement she had stated that she was neither abducted by any body nor subjected to Zina.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that Mst. Kausar Parveen had clearly stated that she was subjected to Zina-Oil-Jabr by the petitioner and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, therefore, no ground for bail is made out. He, however, concedes that except Mst. Kausar, there is no other eye-witness of the commission of Zina.
5. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the F.I.R. It is stated thatMst. Kausar Parveen had developed illicit relations with Khalid (petitionerherein) and at the time of leaving the parental house she had taken away golden ornaments etc. The allegations prima facie show that it was a case of elopement. Certified copies of applications, dated 6-7-1986 and 8-7-1986 made by Mst. Kausar Parveen before Duty/Illaqa Magistrate have been placed on the file. Through application dated 6-7-1986 she prayed that she be sent to Dar-ul-Aman as her life was safe in the house of her maternal-aunt where she was residing after leaving the house of her husband who had been maltreating her. On 13-7-1986 she made statement before Magistrate First Class, Lahore, that her husband was a person of bad character and he wanted her to lead similar life but she declined. She left his house and started living in the house of her Khala and that no body had abducted her. Since there is no eye-witness to the commission of Zina except Mst. Kausar Parveen and she made divergent statements on 13- 7-1986 and 16-7-1986 a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Depalpur.