' Dost Muhammad petitioner being accused of case F.I.R. No,101, dated 13-4-1994 under section 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 with Police Station, Jauharabad has approached this Court for the grant of bail after refusal of the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 14-7-1994.
2. The allegations against the petitioner as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 11-44994 he abducted Mst. Razia daughter of the complainant due to the illicit relations and committed sexual intercourse with her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of section 11 of Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 are not attracted as the alleged abductee is an aged woman and left the house with her own accord. He maintained that if it be presumed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse, even then she appears to be a consenting party. He next contended that the prosecution story does not find support from medical evidence especially when after recording the statement of the abductee under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 9-5-1994, she was handed over to her father and it was on 10-5-1994 that she was medically examined. As such, she being a married woman, might have co-habituated with her husband. Next submitted that firstly the alleged abductee was shown as an accused and then she was persuaded to save herself and to make a false statement.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail and supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. Mst. Razia Bibi, the victim in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Clearly stated that Dost Muhammad has been committing Zina with her. Further, recovery of the girl from the company of the present petitioner after a period of more than 15 days is sufficient proof of commission of offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to explain the malice either on the part of the complainant or the police to falsely implicate the petitioner in such a heinous offence. It may also be observed that no reasonable or even a person of lowly status in our society would coin up the story involving the family honour. In these circumstances, I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected.