AUSAF ALI KHAN; J.- A case under section 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 355 PPC. Was registered against the petitioner and others on the 3rd of July, 1992 with Police Station Safdar Abad District Sheikhupura at the instance of Mst. Asia Bano.
2. The complainant, a married woman, had alleged that while she was present in her house on 18th of June, 1992, her neighbour Mst. Shabana took her along on the pretext that they will take her ailing mother to hospital. When they reached near hospital, Muhammad Afzal petitioner alongwith Muhammad Ashraf was present and they forcibly put her in the car and whisked off at the instance of Mst. Hadayat Bibi and Mst. Shabana. She was taken to a house where both the brothers committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her and also deprived her of her golden ornaments. She, however, was present at bus stand on the 3rd of July, 1992 for taking the bus for Faisalabad, alongwith accused, when Shaukat and Rashid P.Ws, alighted from a bus. On seeing them, the petitioner left the place leaving her alone. She, therefore, narrated to the said P.Ws, as to what had happened to her, whereafter they took her come and subsequently she got a case registered.
3. During investigation both the ladies, namely, Mst. Shabana and Mst. Hadayat as well as Ashraf accused against whom definite allegation of Zina was made in the FIR., were found innocent and discharged: This reacts on credibility of the entire version stated by the complainant. It was further said that in last the complainant it had also with the petitioner and remained with him till the latter was arrested. The police, therefore, also associated the complainant with the crime as co-accused of the petitioner. The complainant (Mst. Asia), however, was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the 15th of September, 1992.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged bad on the grounds that the FIR, was lodged against the petitioner after an unexplained dealing; that; the petitioner is also entitled to bail oil the principle of consistency after the co- accused (complainant) having been-admitted to bail and that there in no eye witness of the offence of Zina attributed to him.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed bail but the circumstances narrated supra do make out a case for bail. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his\furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Ilaqa Magistrate, Sheikhupura.