' The brief facts of the present bail petition are that a F.I.R. No, 79/89 dated 25-7-1989 was lodged by Mohammad Ramzan complainant at Police Station Marot District Bahawalnagar under section 380/411, P.P.C. And under section 16/10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. According to the F.I.R. The Janan Mai was abducted during the night between 7 and 8 July, 1989.
She is said to have taken away her own ornaments, her own clothes and Rs,15,000 belonging to her brother Pir Bakhsh. According to the complainant he suspected the petitioner of having abducted his wife Mst. Janan Mai. At the meeting of the Panchait the petitioner has said to have denied the alleged abduction but admitted to have illicit relations with the alleged abductee.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for bail on the following grounds:
(1) That the F.I.R. Has been lodged after a delay of 18 days without any plausible explanation for the same.
(2) That there are no witnesses to the alleged abuction.
(3) That there is no evidence of Zina and abduction.
(4) That there are no witnesses of the alleged theft.
(5) That according to the prosecution story itself no offence is made out under section 10 (2).
(6) That if the prosecution version is accepted on its face value then no offence is made out under section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
(7) That even according to the prosecution story itself, the abductee has not alleged that the present petitioners had committed zina with her.
(8) That the alleged abductee has not been recovered from the custody of the petitioner.
(9) That according to the M.L.R. The alleged abductee is said to have had sexual intercourse within 48 hours of her Medical Examination which had taken place on 29-7-1989, which has not been explained as she was in the custody of the police for three days prior to her Medical Examination and before that she was confined to Dar-ul-Aman from 18-7-1989 to 28-7-1989. Therefore, it was contended that the prosecution story is false and the case against the petitioner is based on mala fides.
(10) That the alleged abductee had made her statement before the Duty Magistrate Bahawalpur on 18-7-1989 wherein she had alleged that the persons named in her statement had committed Zina with her but she had not named the petitioner as one of them.
(11) That the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no longer required by the police.
(12) That the offence under section 380/411, P.P.C. Are not hit by the Prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the State and the complainant oppose grant of bail to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the complainant further points out that Rs,10,600 had been recovered from the possession of the petitioner out of Rs,15,000 alleged to have been taken away by the abductee co- accused. It is however, conceded that the said recovery could only fall under section 411, P.P.C.
Which is not hit by the prohibitory clause.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon following authorities;
(1) 1987 P Cr. L J page 95 Ghulam Mohammad alias Gammi v. The State Wherein bail was granted to the accused as there was no direct evidence of zina.
2. 1987 P Cr. L-J page 481 Khalid v. State wherein the accused was charged under section 16/10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 and was admitted to bail as there was no direct allegation of Zina.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on its merits at this stage, the petitioner's case is one of further inquiry as there is no direct evidence of abduction or Zina against him, and placing reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 'with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Fort Abbas, District Bahawalnagar.