The petitioner, alongwith two others, is accused of offences under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No.334, dated 8-12-1990, registered at Police Station Saddar Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. According to the F.I.R., in brief, the petitioner had abducted Mst. Shehnaz Kausar, with the help of his co-accused while she was on her way to school.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended for his bail and submitted that the F.I.R. Has been registered after a delay of 10 days. Further submitted that even according to the F.I.R. Itself the alleged abductee had only informed the witnesses named therein that she was going home and had not made any allegation of her forcible abduction by the petitioner. Further submitted that the alleged abductee was sui juris and she had contracted Nikah with the petitioner of her own free- will on 5-12-1990, and that the registration of the instant case was a counterblast to the same, having been registered on 8-12-1990, allegedly about an occurrence that had taken place 10 days earlier on 28-11-1990: Further submitted that the alleged abductee had executed an affidavit on 4- 12-1990 to the effect that she was a sui juris and wanted to marry Falak Sher i.e. The present petitioner, of her own free-will. Further pointed out that she had also filed a complaint under section 324/504, P.P.C. Against her father and brothers on 10-11-1990 i.e. Much before the alleged date of occurrence alleging therein that they wanted to marry her against her will, though she wanted to marry the present petitioner. Further submitted that the statement of the alleged abductee recorded on 15-12-1990 under the provisions of section 161, Cr.P.C. Is subsequent to her having been taken into custody and that in any case, as the alleged abductee has made contradictory statements, therefore, the benefit thus arising should go to the petitioner even at the bail stage, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in this respect in Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC. 81 and Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel fur the State opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner is guilty of a heinous crime and that the abductee has clearly stated so in support of the case against the petitioner. However, it was conceded that according to the version of the prosecution itself, the abductee is a consenting party to the offence alleged herein.
5. However, without commenting on the merits of the case, as the alleged abductee has made contradictory statements, and as it is clear from her subsequent' statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. That she did not allege being abducted by the petitioner when she had come across the P.Ws. Named therein i.e. Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Akram, and as the co---accused of the petitioner have been declared innocent by the police investigation; therefore, the doubt so arising in respect of the case of the prosecution brings the present petition within the ambit of provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And in this respect, strength is sought from the precedents relied upon.
6. In view of what has been stated above, the present petitioner is hereby admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh.
N.H.Q./F-28/L