' Being accused in case F.I.R. No,183/93, dated 4-9-1993 registered under sections 452, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. Read with sections 10, 11 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 Mahmand, Allah Yar, Riaz and Iqbal have moved this Court under section 497, Cr.P.C.
For their release on bail in this case pending the decision of the case against them, the same request having been refused to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal vide his order, dated 28-11-1993.
2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that they alongwith their co-accused entered the house of the complainant at midnight, armed with fire- arm weapons and at the gun point threatened the complainant to be silent and abducted his wife and sister namely Mst. Sakina and Mst. Kaneez Mai respectively and when the complainant and his daughter Mst. Irshad Bibi made a hue and cry they fired in the air which attracted the neighbourers to the place of occurrence.
3. It was vehemently contended that the petitioners are innocent in the case and they have not participated in the alleged occurrence as this occurrence allegedly took place on 27-8-1993 and the petitioners had been arrested by the Railway Police on 21-8-1983. They were produced before the Senior Railway, Magistrate Multan, when they were sentenced under the Railway Act and were sent to jail, from where they were released on 2-9-1993 and 30-8-1993. It was argued that the certificates issued by the Superintendent Jail, Multan regarding the detention of the petitioners in the jail during the above said period have been annexed with this petition marked as Annexures "D.1", "E.1" "F-1" and "G.1", respectively. It was urged that the petitioners took up the plea of alibi at the very outset before the police after they were released from the jail but in spite of that they have been roped in this case.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. And specific roles of entering the complainant's house at midnight being armed with fire-arms and kidnapping the two abductees have been levelled against them and the abductees are supporting the prosecution version. However, he could not repell the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners in spite of their plea of alibi. Rather he in view of this evidence conceded that the case against the petitioners is of further inquiry.
5. After having heard both sides I have also gone through the record very minutely. I have seen Annexures D.1, E.1, F.1 and G.1, respectively which are certificates issued by the Superintendent Jail, Multan, wherein he has certified that all the four petitioners were lodged in jail on 22-8-1993 in the Railway Act case and were released from the jail on 2-9-1993 and 30-8-1993. I also rind that after perusal of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners in support of their plea of alibi the police has now decided to put the petitioners in the case under section 109, P.P.C. Only and not as the main culprits.
6. Without appreciating the deep merits of this case which may not be desirable at this stage and not even permissible under the law I hold that the case against the petitioners does fall under the ambit of subsection (2) of A section 497, Cr.P.C. Being a case of further inquiry in view of the certificates issued by the Superintendent Jail. I, therefore, direct that the petitioners be released on bail if they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Khanewal.