ORDERRaja Afrasiab, Khan J.--The petitioners, Muhammad Sharif in Cr.Misc.No.3587/B-1988 and Sh.Ihram Rauf in Cr.Misc.No.3588/B-1988 have moved these petitions for bail after arrest under section 497 Cr.P.C, in a case registered against them under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station Civil Lines Rawalpindi vide F.I.R. No.147 dated 3.4.1988. The above-said two petitions have arisen out of one F.I.R, and as such these petitions are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. The allegation is that the two petitioners and one Anthoney, cq-accused, went to the house of the complainant on 1.4.1988 and declared that they are ready to render assistance to him for the recovery of his missing niece Saeeda. It may be noted that the above-named girl left the house of her father on 29.3.1988 on the ground that her mother had admonished her.
In this matter the three accused mentioned above asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of the recovery of his niece. The complainant, however, paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- in advance to the above said three accused and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- to them when the girl is recovered. According to the prosecution version the three accused took the complainant with them and went on searching the girl from place to place on 3.4.1988. In the meantime the complainant suspected that the accused are not making genuine efforts for search and recovery of his niece and he further apprehended that in fact the two petitioners, and their co-accused Anthoney have abducted his niece. He, therefore, took the accused to the Police Station and accordingly the petitioners were arrested by the police. A case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioners as mentioned earlier.
3. It is contended that the petitioner were subject to intensive interrogation by the investigating officer for full thirteen days and the C.IA. Police also interrogated them for two days, however, nothing was recovered from them despite the above interrogation. Thereafter the petitioners were sent to judicial lock-up. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were arrested by the police as back as 3.4.1988 and that they are in the judicial lock-up for the last more than eight months. Lie contends that there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of the crime and that nothing was recovered from them. According to the learned counsel it is established that the girl left the house of her own accord after she was given admonition by her mother. Learned counsel maintained that this is a ease of no evidence. It is maintained that no complete or. Incomplete challan has been submitted before the court so far. Lastly, it is argued that the co- accused Anthoncy has been granted bail on 20.6.1988 almost under similar circumstances. The learned Stale counsel did not oppose the grant of bail to the petitioners.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, no challan has been submitted so far despite the expiry of more than eight months in the ease. The petitioners are confined in Jail since the date of their arrest. Prima facie, there is no evidence to show that the petitioners are involved in the commission of the crime. The co-accused Anthoncy was allowed bail by this Court and the case of the petitioners is admittedly at par with that of the co-accused. Under the circumstances, in my view this is a case of further enquiry. Accordingly, the petitioners arc admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. Rawalpindi.