' The petitioners who are involved in a rase under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. And section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No,280/91, dated 5-8-1991, registered at Police Station Bara Ghar, Tehsil Nankana, District Sheikhupura seek to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners as per F.I.R. Is that petitioner No,2 contracted marriage with petitioner No,1 without getting divorce from her previous husband-complainant and thereby they are committing Zina.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were arrested on 15-10- 1991 and they were released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura Camp at Nankana Sahib vide his order, dated 22-1-1992 on the ground that the case against them is one of further inquiry. Later on, the complainant moved an application for cancellation of bail which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 22-2-1993 without any basis, hence the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction, so the bail granting order may be restored. He further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever on the record that petitioner No,2 is the wife of complainant Muhammad Sarwar in view of the decree of learned Family Judge, Depalpur, dated 8-2-1992 whereby he dissolved the marriage on ex parte decree thus, there was no justification for the learned Judge to cancel the bail. In the end, he submitted that Nikahnama dated 29-6-1991 on which the police relied has not been proved between the petitioners as per report of the Finger Print Bureau, no material was available for cancelling the bail of the petitioners, and they be granted bail pending the decision of the case.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer and the learned counsel for the complainant, has supported the impugned order on the same reasons which prevailed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge while cancelling the bail application. He has referred to the report of Finger Print Bureau, dated 22-1-1992 in which they have contradicted their earlier report and held that Nikahnama dated 29-6-1991 of the petitioners prima facie seems to be executed between them; that the police in haste submitted the interim report and after final investigation it trasnpired that both the petitioners are involved in this case which falls within the prohibitory clause, so they are not entitled to the grant of bail; that the petitioners are misusing the concession of bail as they are again committing the offence of Zina by living together after they were released on bail. In the end, he submitted that the decree procured by petitioners Nos.1 and 2, dated 8-2- 1992 on the face of it is collusive and inoperative as wrong address of the complainant was given deliberately. His address in the order is Chak No,632, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad whereas his proper address is Chak No,627, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. I find great force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State and the complainant that there was sufficient material on the record to justify the cancellation of bail because after due investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the petitioner No,2 entered into Nikahnama without obtaining valid divorce from the complainant, hence the petitioners were committing Zina.
During the investigation it came to light that Nikahnama dated 29-6-1991 was executed between the petitioners without procuring divorce from the complainant by petitioner No,2 because the date of divorce deed though open to serious legal objection is 8-2-1992 whereas date of Nikah is 29-6-1991. In the presence of the aforesaid material, there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause, thus the impugned order is legally valid and sustainable. This petition is dismissed accordingly.