' 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,203/92, dated. 6-10-1992 registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Gujranwala.
2. According to the F.I.R., in brief, the petitioner and his co-accused allegedly abducted Mst.
Shabbana Kausar, daughter of the complainant, with the intention of committing Zina with her.
3. The learned counsel contended for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the case is false.
Further submitted that the prosecution itself had.Not placed reliance on its own version, as the challan in the instant case has been submitted only under section 11 and charge under section 10 has been dropped, creating very serious doubt about the truthfulness of the complaint and the benefit of the same should go to the accused even at the bail stage. Further submitted that there is a delay of nine days in the lodging of the F.I.R. Which creates serious doubt about its veracity.
Further submitted that no statement of the alleged abductee had been recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. And as such it cannot be said that there is sufficient evidence on the record to entertain reasonable belief that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged. Further submitted that as according to the medico-legal report the alleged abductee's hymen was intact, therefore, the medical evidence fails to support the case of the prosecution against the petitioner. Further submitted that as the alleged abductee was neither recovered from the petitioner nor was she produced for medical examination on the very day it is alleged that she had reached the house of her father, therefore, the swa bs of semen in respect of which there is a positive report can be of no help to the prosecution. Further submitted that as neither any Nikah was performed nor was there any independent corroboration of the allegation that the alleged abductee had been abducted by force or seduced to illicit intercourse, therefore, the provisions of section 11 as alleged are not attracted to the present case. Further submitted that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal and that he is no longer required by the police.
4. The bail was opposed on behalf of the State, but the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were not rebutted. Furthermore, all the said contentions are duly supported by the record of the case produced in the Court.
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 in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.