' The learned counsel assailed the order dated 11-3-1989 inter alia on the grounds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has brushed aside the report of the Chemical Examiner on flimsy ground and on the contrary the learned Judge by expressing his opinion on its credibility prejudiced the case of the petitioner. He had further grudge that the delay in the registration of the case has been satisfactorily explained. He has also stated that the respondent No,1 with the collusion of the police functionaries pressurized the petitioner to effect a compromise and thereupon the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No, 1438 of 1989 in this Court against this highhandedness of the police functionaries. Notice to respondent No,1.
' The petitioner seeks cancellation of ed to respondent No,1, in a case under section 10 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at the instance of the petitioner.
' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was named in the F.I.R. He was alleged to have committed Zina with the petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to the concession of bail. Contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent as well as for the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The bail was granted to the respondent mainly on the consideration that the allegation against the respondent is that his wife brought the petitioner herself and then facilitated the commission of Zina which was committed by the respondent which is unnatural on the face of it. The learned trial Court had also observed that the Investigating Officer admitted that the door of the room where the petitioner was raped was iron door, therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that on her hue and cry the witnesses came and also peeped through the creeks of the door and saw the offence being committed is not possible in view of the statement of the Investigating Officer that the door did not have any creek. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the police never obtained vaginal swa bs but it was the petitioner who got herself medically examined after nine days of the occurrence which was not relied upon by the trial Court which granted bail on two-fold grounds; firstly the report was not very reliable because it was not possible to detect semen nine days after the commission of the offence and secondly the petitioner got herself medically examined privately, therefore, it could not be ascertained whose swabs were sent for detection of semen. I have gone through the ing order and find that cogent reasons have been given for granting bail to the respondent to which no exception can be taken. There is no allegation that the respondent misused the concession of bail.
3. Resultantly the petition fails which is accordingly dismissed .