' Through this application petitioners seek bail before arrest in a case registered under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with section 14 of Offences Against Property and section 380, P.P.C. Against the petitioners as also one Mst. Parveen, sister of petitioner No,1 and Qamar husband of said Mst. Parveen.
2. F.I.R. Has been recorded at the instance of Sawab Gul who is father of petitioner No,1. According to F.I.R. Petitioner No,1 was engaged with the sister's son of the complainant. A room in his house was rented out to one Muhammad Qamar and Mst. Parveen Akhtar daughter of Muhammad Shafi. Laiq Ahmad who is brother of said Parveen Akhtar had been visiting her said sister and brother-in-law in the said room. It is alleged that this Laiq Ahmad developed illicit relations with her daughter Mst.
Nasreen Akhtar who is petitioner No,1 about which he did not have the knowledge. When he entertained the doubt he got the said house vacated from said Mst. Parveen Akhtar. On account of his vacation of house they were not happy and threatened him that they would take revenge for humiliation caused to them. On 6-12-1988 the complainant was absent from his house and had gone to attend his duties in service. His wife alongwith her three daughters went to her married daughter namely Mst. Nasim Akhtar in the house of her in-laws and left behind his son Muhammad Shahid and petitioner No,1. At about 11-00 a.m. Muhammad Laiq petitioner No,2 alongwith his stepmother Mst. Shamim Akhtar and sister Mst, Parveen Akhtar as also his brother-in-law Muhammad Qamar came to his house. Muhammad Laiq and Muhammad Qamar stood outside the house whereas Mst. Shamim Akhtar and Mst. Parveen Akhtar came in the house. On their asking his daughter Mst. Nasreen Begum took an amount of Rs,27,348 present in the house and golden ornaments details in the F.I.R. As also the garments and went with them. When his son Shahid Gul present in the house who was 8/9 years old asked her as to where they were going, Mst. Shamim and Parveen told him that they were going in connection with giving garments for Karhai. When they both alongwith Mst. Nasreen came out of the house the said Shahid Gul also followed them where he saw that in the street Muhammad Laiq and Muhammad Qamar were also standing who took away petitioner No,1 Mst. Nasreen Begum. He followed them upto the road when he saw that a Suzuki Pick Up was standing on the road in which Muhammad Shall father of Laiq and Muhammad Zaki brother of Laiq were sitting. They put Mst. Nasreen Begum in the said Pick Up and went away.
3. According to the complainant the matter was brought to the notice of member union council who intervened but neither petitioner No,1 was returned to him nor the said money and the golden ornaments allegedly taken away by Mst. Nasreen Begum.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that as a matter of fact Mst, Nasreen Begum petitioner No,1 married petitioner No,2 with her own free will and that she was of the age of 25 years and being major could contract marriage under the law. According to him due to this marriage against the wishes of the complainant who wanted to marry her with the son of his sister he wanted to take revenge, insult and humiliate petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and a mala fide and a false case has been lodged involving the entire family of in-laws of the petitioner No,1 so as to teach them lesson.
5. Rashid Ahmad S.H.O. Police Station Shalimar, is present with the record. During investigation statement of petitioner No,1 has been recorded who denied that she was abducted. She stated that she married petitioner No,2. Member of union council has also been examined who has supported the case of the complainant to the extent that he was approached by him and the matter could not be settled. The complainant has also been examined. The evidence so far collected by the Investigating Agency has not brought anything on the record as to how and in what connection an amount of more than Rs,27,000 was present in the house and that too not under any lock and key.
The involvement of all family members of alleged in-laws of Mst. Nasreen petitioner No,1 prima facie gives strength to the plea of the petitioner -that all of them have been tried to be involved with some motive. It is in the F.I.R. That petitioner No,1 was engaged with the son of the sister of the complainant which gives rise to a suspicion as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it might be a case of taking revenge. It was not denied that petitioner No,1 is major. She claims to have married petitioner No,2. A photo copy of miscellaneous has been placed on the record.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that this Nikah allegedly took place in Karachi which is doubtful. I am not called upon to express any opinion on the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the investigation as also the trial of the case. The deeper analysis of the evidence to be produced by the prosecution shall be made by the trial Court at the time of disposal of the main case. Suffice it to say that from the facts and circumstances and the material brought on the record so far it cannot be said that it establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This is a case where further enquiry is required.2377 7, For the foregoing reasons the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners on 15-1-1989 is hereby confirmed. The criminal miscellaneous is disposed of. .