The petitioners have filed this petition for post-arrest bail in a case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha vide F.I.R. No. 411/86 dated 18-10-1986.
2. According to the P.I.R. Lodged by Kharaiti, father of the abductee on 2---10-1986 at about 2-00 p.m. Two women, namely, Mst. Rehmat and Mst. Farzandi came to his house and took his daughter Mst. Razia aged 15 years alongwith them on the pretext of sewing clothes. When the girl did not return home, the complainant started searching for her. He was informed by Abdul and Niaz that they had seen Muhammad Aslam, and Bashir alongwith Mst. Razia in the shop of Ijaz Ahmad. The complainant enquired from the said persons, who firstly promised to return the girl, but thereafter refused to do so. It was alleged that the aforesaid persons and the two ladies had abducted the daughter of the complainant for illicit intercourse.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the F.I.R. And that Sohni petitioner has entered into Nikah with Mst. Razia who is major according to the police record as well as the opinion of the doctor, hence Sohni petitioner has not committed any offence. The learned counsel has further submitted that the abductee made a statement before a Magistrate on 26-10-1986, wherein she has not named the petitioners as accused persons. Thereafter she made another statement on 23-5---1989, after her recovery by the police when she mentioned the names of the petitioners who have committed Zina with her.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on 1977 P Cr. L J 503 and submitted that in the present case the abductee has made two contradictory statements before the Magistrate and as such it is a case of further inquiry, because it cannot be said with certainty that it is petitioner No.2, who had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with the abductee, whereas petitioner No.1 has contracted marriage with her. He has further submitted that there is delay of 18 days in lodging the F.I.R. Which is fatal to the prosecution case coupled with the circumstances that there is no corroboration of the statement of the abductee that she was inflicted a Kulhari injury by the accused in the process of her abduction.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the I.O. Has vehemently opposed this bail application, but he has to concede that the challan though completed has not been submitted in the Court so far.
5. Petitioner No.1 was arrested on 22-5-1989 whereas petitioner No.2 was arrested on 8-6-1989 and since then they are behind the bars without any progress in the case.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case in view of the Nikah of the abductee with Sohni petitioner and her statement before the Magistrate in preventive proceedings it is a case of further inquiry. Keeping in view the age of the abductee and the petitioners are entitled to bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 (twenty-five thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Bhalwal.
M.Y.H./S-525/L