ORDER RANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD, J.
The petitioner is involved in crime No. 110/94, dated 30.5.1994 registered u/S. 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, No. VII of 1979 with Police Station, Baghtanwala District Sargodha at the instance of one Zulfiqar for an occurrence which took place on 27.5.1994 at about 4 a.m. Through this petition the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in the above said case.
2. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are; that Mst. Nusrat Bibi co-accused sister of the complainant was married to one Abdullah. A year back she was deserted by her husband and had been living with her real brother Zulfiqar, complainant herein. The petitioner had allegedly developed illicit liaison with the said Mst. Nusrat Bibi, who on 27.5.1994 at about 4.00 a.m. Had enticed away the said co-accused. Despite repeated requests the petitioner had not returned the abductee.
3. The post arrest bail petition was moved in the lower Court and the same was declined vide order dated 14.12.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the case. The FIR was lodged with the delay of three days that too without plausible explanation. The petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation as the challan has already been submitted. The co-accused has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 15,11.1994 passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Sargodha.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner committed a very heinous crime and he is not entitled to have a concession of bail at this early stage of the case.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at full length and have also perused the record very minutely.
7. The perusal of the record indicates that no witness had claimed that the petitioner was seen in a compromising position with his co-accused. It is all doubt of illicit intimacy between the petitioner and the co-accused. The mere allegation of doubt of illicit relations cannot be taken as ground to withhold the bail at this stage of the case. The challan in the case has already been submitted in the Court. The petitioner was arrested on 7.8.1994 and since then he is in the judicial lock-up. He is no more required for the purpose of investigation. The registration of the case with the delay of three days also cast doubt upon the case of the prosecution. He is previously non-convict.
8. I will have no comments on the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the case of either party. In the circumstances of the case, prima facie, it seems to be a case of further inquiry which squarely falls under sub-section(2) of section 497 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, I feel that the petitioner is entitled to have a concession of bail so he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sargodha.