' AFRASIAB KHAN, J.-- The petitioner Muhammad Riaz son of Ghulam Miran has moved this post- arrest bail petition under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. In a case registered against him and others under Articles 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station City Kamoke vide F.I.R. No, 176, dated 29-7-1988.
2. The facts as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that the first informant Zulfiqar Ahmad is a conductor. Mst.
Parveen Akhtar aged 14 years, younger sister of the first informant and Mst. Shakeela aged 12 years, his niece also live with him. Adjacent to the house of the complainant, the petitioner Muhammad Riaz also lives in his own house. Further allegation is that the petitioner developed illicit liaison with the above-said two girls. On the night between 20th and 21st July, 1988, the petitioner Riaz, Mumtaz and Arshad son of Ghulam Miran abducted Mst. Parveen Akhtar and Shakeela with a view to commit Zina with them. The said girls were seen in the company of the accused by Rafaqat Ali and Ghulam Rasool. It is further stated that the complainant had been damanding for the return of the two abductees but the accused had been postponing their return on one pretex or the other and consequently the above-said case was got registered against the accused.
3. The contention raised and argued by the learned counsel is that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has abducted the said girls from the lawful guardianship of the first informant. In that behalf the learned counsel argued that the statements made by the prosecutrixes under section 164, Cr.P.C. Will show that they came out to join the petitioner and other co-accused of their own free will. It is next forcefully submitted that the medical evidence will amply demonstrate that no Zina has been committed by the petitioner with the said girls inasmuch as it is stated by the Doctor in the medical reports Annexures 'B' and `C' that no marks of violence, laceration, bruises or abrasions were noted by him on the private parts of the abductees.
The Medical Officer further observed in his report (Annexures 'B' and 'C') that hymens of the abductees were absent. Learned counsel stressed that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 4-81988 and since then he is behind the bars. The learned counsel maintained that the trial of the petitioner has not commenced as yet. He also stated that even the challan, complete or incomplete, has not been submitted so far.
4. Mr. Farooq Bedar, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab is present and has been heard. The learned Law Officer has not opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that this is a case of further inquiry. However, he submits that a direction be given to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation of the case at the earliest.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The admitted position in the case is that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than five months and that so far the challan has not been submitted for the trial of the petitioner. The medical reports Annexures 'B' and `C' will amply show that the two prosecutrixes did not have any mark of violence on their bodies. No laceration, bruises or abrasion were found on their private parts. Further their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Show that the said two abductees came from their house of their own free will. In the circumstances of the case, in my view, this is a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,80,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
4. The Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation of the case within 7 days and on completion thereof, he shall submit the challan of the case to the learned trial Court immediately.