' A case under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is registered against the petitioner and Mst. Shamshad as they were allegedly committing Zina.
2. According to the F.I.R. Lodged by Mst. Sultana i,e, mother of Mst. Shamshad, the latter was married about seven years back to one Siraj of Chichawatni. A boy was born from the wedlock.
However, Mst. Shamshad after having a row with her husband came to the house of her parents i,e, complainant.
' On the day of occurrence, the aforesaid Mst. Shamshad was taken away by the petitioner namely Ashfaq Ahmad on the pretext that her girlfriend Mst. Farzana was seriously ill and that she had called her. She accordingly accompanied the aforesaid Ashfaq Ahmad but did not return to the house till the next day. The complainant got worried and went to the house of Mst. Farzana aforementioned and was told that Mst. Shamshad or petitioner Ashfaq Ahmad never visited her.
Mst. Shamshad was seen in the company of Ashfaq by Muhammad Aslam and Khan Muhammad P. Ws. The complainant started searching both of them but without any success. She thereupon lodged the present F.I.R. With the delay of one month on the ground that Mst. Shamshad was taken away by Ashfaq on the false pretext for the purpose of Zina.
3. The petitioner applied for bail to the Sessions Court which was dismissed by Mehar Ghulam Farid Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide his order, dated 13-3-1996.
4. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to bail as the F.I.R. Was delayed for about one month; that there is no evidence on record to show that Ashfaq petitioner is guilty of committing' Zina with aforesaid Mst. Shamshad; that the co-accused Mst. Shamshad was admitted to bail and as such, applying the rule of consistency, the petitioner should also be admitted to bail.
5. The learned State Counsel opposed the bail application on the ground that there was sufficient evidence with the prosecution which showed that Mst. Shamshad being a married woman was kept secretly by the petitioner in a house where they used to live together in Zina. The bail of Mst.
Shamshad was granted because she had a suckling child and as such, the rule of consistency was not allegedly attracted.
6. I have considered the above submissions. The F.I.R. Is clear enough to say that the petitioner had taken away Mst. Shamshad, a married woman from the house of her parents on a false pretext that her ailing friend Mst. Farzana had called her. Thereafter, she was taken to a house where she was kept secretly showing her to be his wife although it was clearly known that she was a married woman. The statements of Allah Widaya and Irshad Ahmad support the version that the petitioner had kept Mst. Shamshad secretly in a house where she was subjected to Zina. Similarly, the delay in the registration of the case is explained in the F.I.R. Itself as the complainant had been searching about the petitioner and Mst. Shamshad for about one month and after being disappointed, ultimately got the case registered. The rule of consistency is not applicable in this case because the co-accused Mst. Shamshad was granted bail because of her suckling child.
7. In view of the above situation, it is not possible to enter into the deeper appreciation about the merits of the case. The evidence, so far collected by the prosecution has prima facie linked the petitioner with the offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has, therefore, no case for bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed.