SM. ZUBAIR, J.- The petitioner who is involed in a case under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VQ of 1979, arising out of FIR No324,dated 14-7-1993, registered at Police Station Sammundari, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused abducted Athe .Bilquis fen: the purpose of Zina.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the abductee Mst. Bilquis is legally wedded wife of the petitioner,as per Nikah Nama dated 25-6- 1993, attached with this petition as Annex B).
He further contended that the complainant is not a trustworthy person as he has mentioned two different sets of eye-witnesses in two different applications, one submitted before the S.P. Dated 11- 7-1993 and the other on the basis of which FIR dated 14-7-1993 was registered^ience the prosecution case is not free from doubt. He has also referred to the affidavit of the abductee as well as the statement which the abductee made before the Magistrate in a criminal complaint on 24-6-1994, in which she stated before the learned Magistrate that she willingly entered into marriage with the petitioner police the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Leamed counsel for the State assisted by the police officer has opposed this application on the ground that the abductee after her recovery made statement on 25-8-1993, under section 164 Cr.P.C., whereb she has categorically stated that she was subjected to Zina Bil Jabr by the petitioner and there is no marriage between the petitioner and the abductee. He has further contended that neither the person who performed the Nikah was produced before the police nor any witness of marriage appeared b defence and the case is at evidence stage,because the complainant as well as the lady doctor has been exambed b this case. The factual controversy raised by the leamed counsel could very well be resolved at the trial which is b progress.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is statement of the abductee under section 164 Cr.P.C., which directly accused the petitioner for the commission of Zina Bil Jabr. There is evidence whatsoever available on the police file or on this file b the form of affidavit of the person who performed Nikah which could prove the authenticity of the marriage certificate. Mere filing of suit for restitution of conjugal rights or suit for jactitation of marriage,per se, is not sufficient to establish the solemnisation of marriage between the petitioner and the abductee; hence no case for bail is made out This petition is accordingly dismissed.