MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.77/90 dated 19.3.1990 for commission of offence under Article 10 of Ordinance No.VII of 1979 at Police Station Midh Ranjha, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha.
2. According to the F.I.R on 18.3.1990 Mst. Mehri daughter of Yara complainant went to the Dera of Raja son of Dara to fetch. She went inside the haveli where she was caught hold of by the petitioner who forcibly dragged her inside the Kotha and committed zina-bil-jabar with her. On her out-cries the complainant Sultan Ahmad and Saro P.Ws, were attracted to the spot. On seeing the witnesses the petitioner left Mst. Mehri and ran away. Mst. Mehri was medically examined on 20.3.1990 and was found to be mensurating. The doctor noted that she was habitual to sexual inter-course.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was falsely involved in the case and at the most it was merely a case of attempt and not of zina. He further submitted that according to the investigation conducted by Ahmad Khan, S.I. It has been proved that Mst. Mehri had illicit relations with the petitioner and that she had gone to his Dera of her own accord and that the witnesses cited in the F.I.R were not present. If the witnesses are excluded, then there remains the statement of Mst. Mehri alone who herself was an accused person. Her statement was relevant but could not form the sole basis of conviction. He pointed out that the Investigating Officer had recommended that Mst. Mehri be also arrayed as an accused person. The Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the investigation conducted by the police showed that the petitioner had illicit relations with Mst. Mehri since long. He did not deserve concession of bail. He placed reliance on Salamat Ali vs. State (1987 P Cr.LJ. 1457).
3. There appears to be considerable weight in the submissions made by the learned State counsel.
The investigation conducted by the police reveals that petitioner had illicit relations with Mst. Mehri since long and that Mst. Mehri had gone to the petitioner's dera situated at a considerable distance of her own accord where both of them committed illicit intercourse. Hence, prima facie, the petitioner is guilty of zina liable to Tazir which falls within the prohibition of Section 497 of the Cr.P.C.
In some-what similar circumstances bail was declined in Salamat Ali's case referred to by the learned State counsel. In the said case it was observed that the prosecutrix had eloped with the accused who had not claimed that he had contracted marriage with her. Hence keeping in view of the fact that zina was committed with the prosecutrix bail was declined. In the present case the Prosecution is not entirely relying on the statement of Mst. Mehri (who may be arrayed as an accused person in the challan) but has also collected other evidence to show that she had illicit intimacy with the petitioner since long. The petitioner, prima facie, appears to be guilty of violating the limits of Allah and does not deserve the consession of bail. Hence his bail-application is dismissed.