' Syed Masaud Hashmi petitioner being accused of case F.I.R. No,219, dated 20-8-1994 under section 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 with Police Station "A"
Division, Gujrat has approached this Court for the grant of bail after refusal of the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 15-9-1994.
2. The allegations against the petitioner as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that he alongwith his wife Jamila abducted Mst. Rehana daughter of the complainant for the purpose of selling her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that there is unexplained delay of six months in lodging the F.I.R. Which factor alone is sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution story; F.I.R. Was lodged not by the real mother and the complainant has been put up by the police to make such a statement as petitioner's cases are pending in the different Courts against the police officials and that the Nikahnama of the alleged abductee is on record which shows that she being a major herself entered into marriage with Ishtiaq and the petitioner has been roped due to enmity.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of 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. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. After a period of six months is itself sufficient circumstance to make the prosecution story, prima facie, doubtful. In her statement the alleged abditctee has stated that Mst. Jamila caught hold of her and the present petitioner committed Zina-bil-Jabr. I have yet to come across such a wife who will afford such help to her husband to commit Zina with a girl. The prosecution story on this ground too prima facie does not inspire confidence. There is also nothing on record to suggest that if the Nikah of the victim with Ishtiaq was performed forcibly, she should have filed a suit for jactitation of marriage. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in other cases, in my view, does not debar him to the concession of bail in a case which prima facie appears to be false.
' In view of the above facts, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner's case is one of further inquiry.
He shall accordingly be released on bail subject to executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Gujrat.
Nothing said in this order shall prejudice the trial.