S.M. ZUBAIR, J.- The petitioner who is involved in a case under sections 10, 13 and I6 of Ordinance VII of 1979, arising out of FIR No. 151, dated 10-10-1993 registered at Police Station Baghtanwala, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. As per FIR, the co-accused of the petitioner are alleged to have enticed away Mst. Razia wife of Manzoor and then committed Zina with her. The petitioner and his co-accused Manzoor are alleged to have sold Mst. Razia to Ameer and Mehra for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- for the commission of Zina.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no proof of the allegation of offence under section 13 of Ordinance VII of 1979, against the petitioner, because Mst. Razia the victim is herself an accused in this case. The FIR was lodged after a delay of 1 years which remained unexplained and makes the prosecution case further doubtful. He also contended that Mst. Razia filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against Manzoor Ahmad on 3-5-1993 and thereafter, the petitioner was involved in this case maliciously and falsely as a counter-blast, so that she should not demand divorce from her husband Manzoor Ahmad; hence in the presence of this material, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer has submitted that two witnesses, Quaida and Manzoor have supported the prosecution case and they have mentioned that the petitioner sold Mst. Razia for Rs. 21,000/- and one buffalo to Ameer. Thus, there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause and he is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Admittedly, Mst. Razia is an accused in this case. There is no evidence worth the name on the file to prima facie connect the petitioner with the crime. I have perused the statements of Quaida and Manzoor. Both these witnesses have nowhere disclosed the the, month and the year when the petitioner admittedly made extra judicial confession before them with respect to the sale of Mst.
Razia. In addition to that, there is evidence on the record that Mst. Razia filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage against Manzoor Ahmad; hence the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner might have been involved in this case on account of filing of suit for dissolution of marriage by Mst.
Razia against Manzoor Ahmad son of the complainant, who herself is an accused in the present case. Thus the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Sargodha.