' The petitioner, alongwith his co-accused Mst. Azizan, is accused of offence under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No,294, dated 22-10-1992, registered at Police Station 'B' Division Okara.
2. According to the F.I.R., in brief, both the accused are alleged to have been seen committing Zina with each other 28/29 days before the registration of the case in question and it is further stated therein that two days thereafter the petitioner had abducted the said Mst. Azizan, his co-accused.
3. The learned counsel contended for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the case is false.
Further submitted that, in any case, as no medical evidence is available on the record to prove the allegations of Zina, therefore, the provisions of section 10 of the Ordinance, 1979, are not attracted to the instant case. In this respect, further submitted, that as no complaint has been lodged in respect of the occurrence promptly, therefore, very serious doubts arise as to the veracity of the allegation.
Further submitted that there is no evidence on the record to prove that the petitioner had abducted his co-accused, as there is no statement by the alleged abductee in this respect. Further submitted that as the co-accused, Mst. Azizan has been allowed bail, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the petitioner may also be dealt with accordingly. Further submitted that, in any case, offence under section 16 of the Ordinance, 1979, is not hit by the prohibitory clause as punishment for the same is seven years with whipping not exceeding 30 stripes and fine. Further submitted that the petitioner is no longer required by the police and that he is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the present bail petition and submitted that the petitioner is guilty of a heinous moral offence, and that there is sufficient evidence on record to link him with the same. However, conceded that no medical had taken place to support the allegation of Zina, and that the offence under section 16 of the Ordinance, 1979, is not hit by the prohibitory clause.
5. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Okara.