A case under section 10/1G of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, stands registered against the petitioners with Police Station Shorkot, District Jhang, vide F.I.R. Dated 21-9- 1988. The case was got registered by one Salamat A.I with the allegation that he was married to one Mst. Parveen Akhtar, petitioner No.2 in the year 1983. One and a half years before the registration of the case said Mst. Parveen Akhtar gave birth to a girl from the said wedlock, who was alive. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.1 Riaz had developed illicit relations with his wife Mst. Parveen Akhtar, and a year before the registration of a case, he abducted his wife, therefore, the present case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case got registered against the petitioners is absolutely false. Submits that the first informant who claims to be the husband of Mst.
Parveen Akhtar, the alleged abductee in the case, in fact is her brother. Contends that the petitioners are husband and wife and in support of their contention they also placed a copy of Nikahnama before the investigating agency. In such circumstances, contends that it was the first informant who had committed a heinous offence but in order to cover up the same had involved the petitioners falsely. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the case. According to the investigation conducted by the police, the first informant was step-brother of Mst. Parveen Akhtar, petitioner No.2 and the police also arrested him for the offence of Zina. The investigation, so far conducted has revealed that petitioner No.1 Muhammad Riaz was not the husband of Mst. Parveen Akhtar because she had been married to another person who till today had not divorced her. The statement of the husband of Mst. Parveen Akhtar has been recorded by the investigating agency who has admitted that Mst. Parveen Akhtar was his wife and he never divorced her.
Since the petitioners have relied upon a Nikahnama which has been found to be a forged document by the investigating agency, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
Resultantly, the petition fails, which is dismissed.
N.H.Q./N-1330/1,