This petition is moved under section 497(5), Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. l and 2 vide order dated 21-9-1995 and dated 10-9-1995 respectively recorded by Mr. Javed Nawaz Chaudhary, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal.
2. According to the F. I.R., a case under section 11 of the Offence of. Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 was registered at the report of Sardar Khan, father of the abductee, Mst. Balqees Fatima aged about 14 years. It was stated in the F.I.R. That the aforesaid Mst. Balqees Fatima was missing from the house and on enquiry Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Hussain son of Fateh Muhammad i.e. P.Ws. Told him that the abductee was seen alongwith Muhammad Iqbal, accused boarding a wagon for Sargodha. According to complainant the abductee was enticed away for the purpose of Zina by the aforesaid accused.
3. The abductee after her recovery made statement that she was taken out of the house by Imam A.I on the pretext that his daughter was calling her at his Dera. She reached the Dera of Imam A.I, where Muhammad Iqbal respondent No. l was also present. Both of them forcibly took her away from that Dera. Whereupon Muhammad Iqbal allegedly committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her and that ultimately both of them namely Muhammad Iqbal and Mst. Balqees Fatima were taken into custody by the police while they were present in a bus near Skaisar. She stated that after her abduction Muhammad Iqbal respondent No. l committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. The learned trial Court admitted respondent No. l to bail on the ground that the story given in the F. I. R. Was different from the story given by Mst. Balqees Fatima in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Recorded after her recovery by the police. In the F.I.R. It is narrated that she was seen by P.Ws. While she was boarding a wagon, whereas according to abductee she was taken away on a bicycle. This according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals two versions, which require further inquiry. Likewise Imam A.I was admitted to bail because there was no allegation of Zina against him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell in error by saying that there were two different versions. In fact there was only one version because according to P.Ws. She was seen boarding a wagon alongwith Muhammad lqbal, accused whereas according to the abductee she was boarded a bus with Muhammad Iqbal.
Secondly it was contended that the allegation about Zina was substantiated as the report of Chemical Examiner was found to be positive and that her age of about 14 years was duly proved through her school leaving certificate. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent has no case for bail and as such the same should be recalled.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that it was a case of further inquiry for the reason stated in the impugned order. Secondly the case had already been fixed for trial for 20-5-1996 and that the conclusion of trial is within sight. It was, therefore, urged that since the respondents did not commit any overt act after grant of bail, therefore, the recalling of bail at this stage will prejudice the trial.
6. I have considered the above submissions and find that the deeper appreciation of merits of the case cannot be undertaken at this stage. The case has already been fixed for trial and the prosecution evidence has been summoned for 20-5-1996 by the trial Court. It can, therefore, reasonably be expected that the conclusion of trial is within sight. However, without touching the merits of the case, it is directed that the trial be concluded and the case be decided by the learned trial Court within six weeks under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. If the respondents make any overt act during the trial or cause unnecessary delay in its disposal, the aggrieved party may move for cancellation of their bail, and if so moved, it shallbe decided on its own merits by the appropriate forum without being influenced by this order.
7. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation.