1. ' This is a petition for bail on behalf of Nadeem Ahmad and Shabbir Ahmad petitioners who along with others are involved in a case under Articles 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. After going through the order dated 19-10-1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, whereby he allowed bail to Muhammad Iqbal and Mst. Shamim accused, I issued suo motu notice to both of them to show-cause why their bail should not be cancelled. Both these matters are being disposed of by this order.
2. The F.I.R. Version is that on the night between 20th and 21st July, 1987 at about 9-30 p.m. Mst.
2. Shamim and her husband Iqbal came to the house of Rafiq Khan complainant and told his daughter Mst. Arfana (the alleged abductee) that her grandmother was seriously ill. On this pretext they took her towards railway station where a jeep was already parked. Shabbir and Nadeem petitioners were present near the jeep. Shabbir petitioner focibly put her in the jeep and all of them took her to Sargodha. The case was registered on 1-8-1987.
3. ' On 22-10-1987 Mst. Arfana made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein she stated that Mst. Shamim came to her house and told her that her grandmother was seriously ill. She accompanied her. Muhammad Iqbal, husband of Mst. Shamim, was present outside and both of them took her to railway station where Nadeem and Shabbir were already present with a van. Then all of them took her to Sargodha and kept her in detention for ten days.
4. ' On 142-1987 her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded wherein she stated that both Shamim and her husband Muhammad Iqbal came to her house and took her to the bus-stand where Ghulam Shabbir and Nadeem petitioners were present with a jeep. All of them took her to Sargodha where Shabbir committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. He and Muhammad Iqbal etc. Forcibly obtained her signatures on a Nikahnama.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the statements of the alleged abductee under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. Are at variance; there is no eye-witness to the commission of Zina and the F.I.R. Was lodged eleven days after the alleged occurrence, therefore, the case of the petitioners needs further inquiry.
6. ' Learned counsel for Mst. Shamim and Muhammad Iqbal respondents has adopted the same arguments to contend that bail was rightly allowed to them. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners and co-accused Mst. Shamim and Iqbal are in the F.I.R.
7. With specific role, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties Mst. Arfana made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 22-10-1987. In this statement she did not make any allegation of Zina against any of the accused. Strangely enough, her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded on 1-12-1987, i,e,, more than one month after statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. In the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. She leveled allegation of Zina against Shabbir Ahmad petitioner for the first time. In the said statement she also stated that Shabbir Ahmad and Muhammad Iqbal etc. Forcibly obtained her signatures on a Nikahnama whereas no such allegation was made in the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. In the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. She stated that Mst. Shamim alone came to her house and took her away while her husband Muhammad Iqbal was standing outside, but in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. she stated that both Shamim and her husband Iqbal came to her house and both of them took her away. I, therefore, agree with the learned counsel that both the statements are at variance on material points. It is admitted that except Mst. Arfana there is no eye-witness to the commission of Zina. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that the case of Nadeem Ahmad and Shabbir Ahmad petitioners needs further inquiry. Accordingly, I admit them to bail in the sum of Rs,25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jauharabad.
8. ' The notices issued to Mst. Shamim and Muhammad Iqbal respondents are withdrawn.