' Bail is being, sought in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,39/89, dated 1741989 at Police Station Kotli Said Amir, District Sialkot, initially under section 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, to which, upon recovery of the abductee, section 10 was added.
2. According to the prosecution, complainant's elder sister Irshad Bibi out of her wedlock with Khalil-ur-Rchman deceased, had 2 daughters and a son respectively Abida Bibi (aged 15 years), Aalia (aged 8 years) and Atiq-ur Rehman (aged 11. Years) and were being brought up by the complainant (as their mother Irshad Bibi had contracted second marriage and was putting up at Lahore) from where the petitioners along with co-accused Muhammad Munir and Jarnil Ahmad who were employed as mason and laborer by the complainant for construction of the house, abducted Mst. Abida Bibi on 12-4-1989 at early hours of the morning, along with some certain valuable articles. Concerning which the case was registered; subsequently, the abducted was recovered on 20-4-1989, whereupon her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By Ilaqa Magistrate a day later i,e, on 2244989, wherein in addition to affirming the prosecution version sei out in the F.I.R. In material particulars divulged that Mohammad Munir co-accused had been subjecting her to rape.
3,. Consequent upon refusal of bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 29-5-1989, present petition has been instituted, and it is contended that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with a delay of 5 days, that the allegation of rape is only directed towards the co-accused Muhammad Mfuriir, that the petitioner is behind the bar for the last 4-1/2 months, that there are contradictions in the prosecution version recorded in the F.I.R. And that of the statement of the abductee in particular that her mother is residing at Rawalpindi and not at Lahore.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner, challan has already been submitted before the trial Court and that the prosecution story has been corroborated by the abductee's statement to which credence is lent by the medical evidence viz. Report of lady doctor who examined the abductee and that of the Chemical Examiner.
5. Having considered the arguments canvassed at the Bar, am of the opinion that there is specific allegation of abduction against the petitioners of a minor girl, during the course whereof she was subjected to rape and is supported by her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. And the medical evidence, therefore, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are involved in a case which falls within the prohibition envisaged under section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C., consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.