ORDER .
The petitioner is accused in case F.I.R. No.637/94, dated 13-10-1994 registered under section 18/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 with Police Station City "A" Division, Sheikhupura.
2. According to F.I.R. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused Waheed caught hold of the complainant, namely Farhat Naheed from her arm and said that he loved the complainant and she should go with him; upon this the complainant gave a slap on the face of Islam Saeed Bhatti who then caught hold the complainant from her arms and put her into car by dragging; on raising hue and cry of the complainant, the eye-witnesses came and she was rescued. An insignia of M.NA. Was affixed on the car being driven by the petitioner and his co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the investigation section 18/11 of the Ordinance VII of 1979 have been deleted and only section 354, P.P.C. Was applied. He next argued that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and that a compromise has been reached between the petitioner and the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and adopted the reasonings given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides at length and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The co-accused of the petitioner to whom the role attributed is similar to that ascribed to the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous No.717/B of 1995 seeking the concession of pre-arrest bail. Guided by the principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Sarwar Sultan v. The State and another A PLD 1994 SC 133 the bail was declined. Further no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the present petitioner which matter is being dealt with separately. The father of the alleged victim is present in person and has stated .In open Court while weeping that he has entered into a compromise. It may be 8 observed that benefit of prosecution weakness as laid down by, the superior Courts- is always to be given to the accused. For all the reasons I am inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner who shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing, bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties C each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura.
7. Direct S.S.P., Sheikhupura to explain the reasons for not effecting the recovery of car bearing the insignia of M.NA. Allegedly used in the commission of offence when he has already been informed by the learned Sessions Judge vide letter No.2142, dated 22-11-1994. S.H.O. Police Station "A" Division, Sheikhupura alongwith Investigating Officer of the case shall appear in person before this Court on 2-7-1995 to explain as to why action should not be taken against them for their failure to discharge their duties in accordance with the Police Rules and the Statute creating them.
8. A communication be also addressed to Mr. Ijaz Mehmood Chaudhry, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura to explain as to what were the impediments standing in his way to put the machinery of law into motion when he was of the view that Law Enforcing Agencies have not taken into consideration the words of the High Court. He should also explain whether he is powerless or is incapable of exercising jurisdiction vested in him in view of the fact that glaring discrepancies were brought to his notice due to the negligence of the prosecution. To grant or refuse bail is not the matter. The matter is to maintain the prestige, honour and dignity of the Courts and ensure compliance of the orders by the Executive Functionaries. Explanation to reach this Court before 2- 7-1995.
9. O.S.D. (J.) to convey this order telephonically to the concerned agencies.