S.M.ZIJBAIR, J.- The petitioner who is involved in ease under Sections 10/11 ol offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VII of 1997 arising out ol F.I.R. 388/93, Dated 17.11.1993, registered at Police Station Liaqatabad District Lahore, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R., is that he abducted Mst. Shamim alias Nasim Akhtar while of the complainant with the intention to commit zina with her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence took placed 5/6 months ago and the F LR. Was lodged after a considerable delay which makes the prosecution case doubtful; the offence under Section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1097 is not made out as Mst. Shamim alias Nasim Akhtar'wife of the complainant according to the contents of the F.I.R, willingly went with the petitioner, so he cannot be prosecuted for abduction. With respect to Section 10 ibid, the learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner contracted Nikah with Mst. Shamim alias Nasim Akhtar on 31.5. PTO after she was divorced by her former husband Noor Hassan complainant on a verbal talaq, hence she was sui juris to enter into marriage with the petitioner and the petitioner has not committed any offence. In the end, he submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, recorded on 21.11.1993 is an outcome of duress and coercion because the abducted was recovered from the Railway Station Kot Lakhpat on 19.11. PTO whereas her statement was recorded after two days which shows that some undue pressure was put on her to give statement favourable to the prosecution version, hence in (he presence of the material referred to above, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the Stale assisted by the Police Officer, has submitted that there is no divorce deed on the record and the petitioner married with Mst. Shamim alias Nasim Akhtar. Even according to his own assertion without there being any valid talaqnama, hence the petitioner committed an offence under Section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1997 which falls within the prohibitory clause, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parlies and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, there is Nikahnama dated .31.5.1993 between the v petitioner and the abductee and there is no proof that the abductee got divorce from her previous husband Noor Hassan complainant. On the contrary, the abductee is her statement recorded under Section 104 Cr.P.C, stated that she has been abducted by the petitioner against her will and she is wife of complainant Noor Hassan. In the presence of this material, there exists reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause, so this petition is dismissed.