' The petitioner is accused of offences under Article 10/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No,38, dated 15-2-1987, registered at Police Station Moosakhel, District Mianwali.
2. According to the F.I.R. In brief the co-accused of the petitioner had come to the house of the complainant and on their request the wife of the complainant opened the door, whereupon the said co-accused called for the present petitioner and it is further stated therein that they all walked away from the house, as a result of wich the complainant and his wife raised hue and cry but to no avail. It is further stated therein that the complainant and P.Ws. Named therein saw the petitioner being forcibly made to sit in a Suzuki and that they had adducted the petitioner to commit Zina. Ii is further stated that the petitioner had also taken away cash Rs,10,000 and ornaments stated therein while leaving the house of the complainant. The petitioner is stated to have been married to the son of the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for the bail on the following grounds:--
(i) that the petitioner was never aware of the allegation of being married to the son of the complainant and having come to know the said alleged marriage the petitioner had filed a suit for jactitation before the Family Court, Sheikhuprua, and as a result thereof the trial Court has not framed the charge against the petitioner and has adjourned the case sine die till the decision of the suit for jectitation. Therefore, it was argued that, as the trial of -the case has been adjourned sine die, under the circumstances, the petitioner in entitled to bail;
(ii) that the case of the petitioner is one of no evidence, as there are no witnesses of the alleged Zina;
(iii) that the petitioner is no longer required for investigation:
(iv) that the case of the petitioner, being a lady, falls under the proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. And as such she is entitled to bail. To support his contentions the learned counsel placed reliance upon the following authorities:
(i) Mst. Imtiaz Akhtar v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 2127;
(ii) Mst. Elvina alias Guddi v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 2911, and
(iii) Mst. Manzoor Bibi alias Manzooran v. The State 1988 P.Cr. L.J.
564.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition for hail and has pointed out that the F.I.R. Was registered on 15-2-1987 and that thereafter the petitioner and her co-accused were absconding and their arrest took place on 13-11-1989 and that it is thereafter that the petitioner had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage in the first instance and thereafter, after withdrawing the same had filed the suit for jactitation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. However, the learned counsel for the State confirmed that the trial has been adjourned sine die because of the suit of jactitation filed by the petitioner, as stated above.
6In view of what has been stated above, as the trial of the case has been adjourned sine die and as the petitioner is a woman, therefore, the petitioner is hereby admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.