' Petitioners are seeking bail in a case registered, vide F.I.R. No, 301/88, dated 19-9-1988 under section 10/16 of Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 380, P.P.C., at Police Station City Shujahad, District Multan, at the instance of Rustam Khan, father of the abductee Mst. Husna, to the effect that on 22-6-1988 the abductee was taken away by one Zahida wife of Muhammad Ilyas from her house on the pretext of going out for shopping, but consequent upon her failure to turn up by the evening, the complainant was put to alarm thus went out in search of her; during the course whereof, he was informed by Shaukat and Usman that the abductee was seen boarding a bus for Multan, at Adda Mubarik Shah with the petitioners alongwith co-accused Zahida, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Riaz, Ummi Khan and Muhammad Hanif and that Muhammad Riaz is committing Zina with her. It is further stated that, subsequently, he also discovered that certain ornaments and cash was missing from the house.
2. Petitioner's bail application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 23-10-1988, hence the present petition.
3. It is contended that the F.I.R. Was lodged three months after the alleged occurrence which remains unexplained and that the only role ascribed to the petitioners is that they were seen boarding the same bus alongwith the abductee and the remaining co-accused, which requires further inquiry.
' On the other hand, learned counsel for State has opposed the bail petition by contending that the petitioners have been specifically named in the F.I.R. And were seen together at the bus stand from where they boarded the same bus in the company of the co-accused and the abductee.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that since according to the prosecution story itself the only allegation levelled against the petitioners is that of having been seen travelling together with the co-accused and the abductee, therefore, the question of their involvement in the alleged crime requires further inquiry within the contemplation of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, they are entitled to the concession of bail.
They are admitted to bail subject to their furnishig bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Shujabad.