1. ORDERK.N. BHANDARI. J. - The three petitioners are accused in case MR No. 260 06. Dated 28.6.10%.
2. Registered at Police Station Basirpur. District Okara, under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement 'of ,Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1070. On 8.10.1006. On their bail petition notice for today was issued to the State and in the meanwhile they were admitted to pre-arrest hail. The Stale as well as the complainant have entered appearance and' have opposed the confirmation of the bail.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought confirmation of the hail on the grounds that in the first two investigations held.By Inspector and DSP. The petitioners were found innocent: that the FIR was lodged titter about six months; ilitii there is enmity between the parties which is reflected in the lodging of FIR No. 60 of 1096 by Yousaf; father of the petitioners I and 2. In respect of die murderous assault on his nephew Ri/wan. Against Rashid S/o Allah Ditta, the complainant .In the present case, lt is elaborated that in this case Rashid has been conv icted and punished to.
3. Aggregate imprisonment of 22 years. It is also pointed out that Mukhtar Bibi, the witness accompanying the alleged abductee, has never been produced and in factduring the trial of case FIR No. 60 of 1906 one Irsliad Bibi D/o Chiragh was produced as D.W.l who claimed to be present when the occurrence of abduction took place. '(irant of bail is opposed by the State counsel by urging that investigation has not taken place according to the rules and the decision of the case on oath ln the Investigating Officer is.Not permissible. He also contended that abductee has not vet been recovered and the investigation is in progress.V Learned counsel for the complainant has also taken objection to the inv estigation by pointing out that this Court in its order dated 28.7.1996, passed in < r. Misc. 665/H/96 gave direction with regard to conduct of investigation but thesame direction has not been followed, lt is also urged that in respect of petitioner No. 3. Salim, the order of the Sessions Judge is silent.4. In view of the admitted enmity between the parties reflected iii lodging of FIR 60/96 by Yousaf, father of petitioners 1 and 2 against Rashid S/o Allah Ditta, complainant, the delay of six months in lodging the FIR in this case assumes importance and reflects adversely upon the veracity of the prosecution case. The conclusion of the two initial Investigating Officers being in favour of the petitioners, it would make the case of the petitioners that of further enquiry, lt is also strange that even though abductee has not been recovered but Mukhtar Bibi, the alleged companion of the abductee at the lime of occurrence has also not been produced by the prosecution. In fact in the trial of Rashid, another lady Irshad Bibi was produced as D.W.l. This also causes serious aspersion upon the correctness of the prosecution claim.For the reasons above noted, I conclude that the case of the three petitioners'is that of further enquiry.
4. Resultantly, I allow this petition and confirm the interim to the petitioners, vide order of this Court dated 8.10.1996. Disposed of.