' This is a petition for bail on behalf of Shaukat Ali and Mushtaq Ahmad alias Jhalla petitioners.
2. The case was registered at the instance of Mst. Surayya Bibi, daugther of Nawab, under Articles 10, 13 and 14 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 318, P.P.C. In the F.I.R. She alleged that 5/6 months back Mst. Surayya Begum wife of Waris, and Mst. Sakina took her to their house where Shaukat Ali petitioner and co-accused Gulzar Ahmad alias Kala were already present. Gulzar bolted the door from inside and Shaukat Ali petitioner committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. She raised alarm attracting Ranjha and Ali Ahmad P.Ws. Who saw the occurrence through peep-hole of the door.
They started breaking the door when both the aforesaid accused opened the door and ran away by extending threats. She further stated that a few days after that when she was passing from the street, Mst. Surayya and Sakina again took her to a room where Mushtaq Ahmad alias Jhalla petitioner and co-accused Ejaz Ahmad were present. Mst. Surayya persuaded her to commit Zina with them, but she did not agree. Then Mst. Surayya left the room and co-accused Ejaz Ahmad bolted its door from inside. Mushtaq Ahmad removed her Shalwar and started committing Zina- bil-Jabr with her. She cried attracting Haider Ali and Nawab. They opened the door, came inside and saw Mushtaq petitioner committing Zina-bil-Jabr with her. On seeing them, Mushtaq ran away. According to her, Mst. Surayya and Sakina had been getting money for making her available for Zina; 5/6 months prior to the registration of the case she became pregnant; on 1-9-1988 she went to village Padana where her mother was working as a midwife; lady doctor Aziza gave her injection and applied drip resulting in her abortion.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Mst. Surayya Bibi is a woman of easy virtue; she kept quiet for 5/6 months and later on falsely implicated the petitioners to conceal her own sins. He further submits that all other accused except the two petitioners have been found innocent during the investigation and discharged; the two independent eye-witnesses, namely Ali A Ahmad and Haider Ali, have sworn affidavits to the effect that such occurrence never took place in their presence; and the remaining two alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Nawab Din and Ranjha, are father and first cousin of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that if such close relatives had in fact seen such as act being committed with the prosecutrix they would have at once reported the matter to the police.
' The learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Affidavits of All Alunad and Haider All have been placed on the file which are to the effect that they had never seen any occurrence. On inquiry, the A.S.I. Admits that Nawab B Din P.W. Is the father of Mst. Surayya and Ranjha is nephew of Nawab Din. He also admits that no action was taken against any of the other accused because in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Mst. Surayya had not made any allegation against any of them.
' In view of the above circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioners, is made out. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs,10,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Lahore Cantt.