' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition is directed against the order dated 25-10-1994 whereby the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, had declined to cancel the post-arrest bail granted to Muhammad Mushtaq (respondent No,1) by the Sessions Judge, Attack, on 29-6-1994, in case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Huddod) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Hazro, District Attack.
2. The learned High Court has refused to interfere with the bail order for the reasons that "except the statement of the alleged abductee, there is no other evidence. Material on the record to show that Muhammad Mushtaq accused-respondent is connected with the crime. She was not recovered from him. Besides this, her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. After lapse of considerable time of her recovery, and during intervening period, she remained with her parents.
She was then produced before the police and the learned Magistrate recorded her statement" and that "there is nothing on record to show that the impugned order dated 29-6-1994 is capricious or, in any manner, improper in the given circumstances of the case".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that since the abductee in her statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. By the Police and under section 164, Cr.P.C. By the Magistrate, has leveled allegations of Zina-bil-Jabr against the respondent No,1, so he was not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. We do not feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order for the reasons that a Court of competent jurisdiction in its discretion had allowed bail to the respondent No,1. The reasons given by the learned High Court for not interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge are supportable from the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. The consideration for the grant of bail and cancellation thereof are altogether different. Once bail is granted to an accused, then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference, which are not available in the instant case.
5. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.