' A case under section 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against respondents Nos.1 to 3 and two others vide F.I.R. No,181, dated 3-10-1996 at Police Station, Secretariat, Islamabad for the abduction of Mst. Shabana Siddique a daughter of the petitioner.
2. The aforesaid respondents applied for pre-arrest bail which was granted by Mr. Baqar Ali Rana, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad vide his order, dated 17-10-1996 on the ground that Mst. Shabana aforesaid and the principal accused Tariq Mahmood claimed to have married vide a registered Nikah-deed.
3. This petition is moved with the prayer that pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents be cancelled because they could not be admitted to anticipatory bail only because it was a case of further inquiry. In this connection, it was urged that investigation should have been allowed to take its usual course, so that the validity or otherwise of the Nikah claimed by the spouses should have also been investigated and considered on its merits.
4. The petition was opposed by the respondents on the ground that since a valid Nikah was claimed by the spouses, therefore, there was no ground to recall the bail granted to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad.
5. I have considered the foregoing contentions raised at the Bar. The abductee had filed an affidavit in which she had sworn that she was not abducted by the respondents and that before any sexual intercourse could take place between her and the principal accused Tariq Mahmood, they were validly married vide a registered Nikah-deed. According to the record her age is about A 20 years, and prima facie she is sui juris to enter into any contract of marriage. The authenticity of the Nikah-deed was also investigated and the Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that it was a genuine document, but the complainant side was adamant that Nikah was invalid as it had taken place without participation of a Wali from the side of bride.
6. In view of the above situation, it has rightly been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that it was a ca,e of further inquiry. The impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality nor it is perverse or arbitrary. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.