The petitioner is an accused in case F.I.R. No.284, dated 5-11-1994 for offences under section 10/11 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 registered with Police Station Sadar, Sialkot on-the allegation that he forcibly abducted Khalida Parveen for the purpose of committing Zina.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that prosecution witnesses namely P.Ws.I, 2 and 3 have exonerated the present petitioner from the commission of offence inasmuch as Muhammad Anwar (P.W.2) who as per F.I.R. Had stated that he had seen the alleged abductee in the company of present petitioner and others. Muhammad Anwar P.W.2 in cross-examination conceded that it is incorrect that he alongwith Ghulam Rasool had informed the complainant Hassan Din that they had seen the accused and the abductee at the bus stand and also that he had appeared before the police and got recorded his statement in support of the prosecution version. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W.3.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
4. In view of the statement made by the two star witnesses of the prosecution coupled with the absence of prosecutrix herself who is residing abroad with her husband, I am convinced that the petitioner is entitled to bail in keeping with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
5. In so far as the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, rejection of that is no bar to the grant of bail when otherwise sufficient material is available on the record. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sialkot.