' Rehmat Ali petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Articles 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Article 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The facts of the case need not be repeated here as the same have been detailed in my order dated 5th July, 1988 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1356-B of 1988 filed by Allah Lubhaya, co- accused of the petitioner. It may, however, be mentioned that the allegation against the petitioner as contained in the F.I.R. Was that he alongwith aforesaid Allah Lubhaya enticed away Mst. Razia Bibi from her house during the absence of her husband and also took away Rs,1,300 in cash and gold weighig five Tolas.
' Mst. Razia Bibi made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 22nd February, 1988 wherein she alleged that she was abducted by Allah Lubhaya and Rehmat Ali petitioner. They brought her to bus-stand, Lahore, from where Allah Lubhaya took her to Sheikhupura and committed zina-bil-jabr with her. Later on, he brought her to bus-stand, Lahore, where Rehmat petitioner was also present.
She raised alarm, upon which the police took her in custody.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than that of Allah Lubhaya who has been admitted to bail by this Court. The learned State counsel does not controvert this contention. He has, however, opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material available on the record. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than that of Allah Lubhaya co-accused. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. And the statement of Mst. Razia Bibi indicate that it was a case of elopement. In that view of the matter, the position of Mst. Razia is no better than an accomplice. It is worth mentioning that in the statement under section 164, Cr. P C Mst. Razia had stated that she herself took away Rs,1,300 in cash along with some ornaments and clothes. There is nothing in her statement to show that the petitioner or his co-accused had taken away the cash and ornaments etc. For her. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to take the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore City.