' A case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, stands registered against the petitioner with Police Station Barki, Lahore, vide F.I.R. Dated 28-8-1988. The allegations, as contained in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant had married his daughter Mst.
Bushra about 1-1/2 years before the registration of the case. Four months earlier she went out in the fields at night to ease herself but did not come back. The complainant had been searching for her but could not trace her. A day before the registration of the case, the first informant was informed by one's Habib and Nawab Din that they had seen his daughter with the petitioner near the Railway Station getting into a rickshaw, therefore, the present case was registered.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is absolutely false. Submits that there is no evidence which can attract the provisions of section 11 of the Ordinance, as there is no direct evidence with regard to the commission of Zina. Contends that the police during investigation recorded the statements of two witnesses, namely, Liaqat Ali and Rehmat that they had seen the petitioner committing Zina with Mst, Bushra. Contends that the witnesses claimed to have seen them committing Zina before the registration of the case yet they never bothered to inform the first informant or the police, therefore, no reliance on their statements can be placed. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. There is an unexplained delay of four months in the registration of the case. The contention of the learned counsel that the two witnesses who had seen the petitioner committing Zina with Mst. Bushra, never bothered to inform the first informant has some force. If they had informed the first informant, the said fact should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. In the absence of that, there is no reason why they kept quiet regarding the commission of the offence which they had witnessed, for such a long period. I am informed that the petitioner is not required for purposes of investigation any more.
' In these circumstances, I feel that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry, therefore, he is allowed bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned.