The petitioner was arrested on 12-2-1995 in case F.I.R. No. 14/95 Police Station Mid Ranjah, District Sargodha registered on 26-1-1995 at 4-00 p.m. On the statement of Mst. Asma Bibi daughter of Bati under section 10/18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for the alleged occurrence of 23-1-1995. According to the allegations as contained in the statement of Mst. Asma Bibi, the petitioner trespassed into the house of Bati where his daughter Asma Bibi the first informant was present alone at about 11-00 a.m. The petitioner caught hold of the first informant and felled her on a cot, stripped of her Shalwar and attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr when on her cries, Bati and Mehri came there and witnessed the occurrence. The petitioner allegedly ran off scaling over the wall.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in judicial lock-up for more than seven months and there was no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in the near future and that the witnesses were the close relatives of the complainant.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has opposed the application and submitted that the first informant was a young girl of 12/13 years and was alone in the house when the petitioner trespassed into the house, caught hold of her and attempted Zina-bil-Jabr. It 'was not only a case of attempted Zina-bil---Jabr but also a violation of the sanctity of home-----where women-folk are presumed to enjoy the protection as against all transgressors and that the offence was an offence against the society and the petitioner was not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
4. The punishment provided under section 18 for the attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr not liable to Hadd was half of the punishment provided under section 10(2) of the said Ordinance and as such the punishment for the offence is allegedly committed in the present case shall not be more than five years and the offence was not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. In cases where the offences alleged were not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The Court is to see the attending circumstances, nature of the offence committed and the progress in the investigation/trial trade in the case while exercising discretion.
6. In the present case the petitioner is in judicial lock-up for the last more than seven months and the learned Assistant Advocate-General is not in a position to make a statement regarding the time that would be taken in the conclusion of the trial. The prosecution in the circumstances cannot be given the licence to retain the present petitioner for an indefinite period and that is the only circumstance, which has weighed with me, in favour of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Bhalwal.