RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J.-A case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered at Police Station Pir Wadhai, Rawalpindi, vide FIR 266 dated 13-8-1997 against the petitioner for the abduction of Mst. Dilshad Begum who was 14/15 years of age according to the report before the police. In fact, the aforesaid Mst. Dilshad Begum while in the company of Abdul Wahab petitioner was interrogated by the Police after they were found together at the Bus-Stand. The police suspected their relationship and were arrested under section 109 Cr.P.C, but later on the present case was registered against them. The abductee, however, claimed that she was married with Abdul Wahab on 13-8-1997 at Village Tull District Hangu for which a Nikahnama was also produced in the Court wherein the age of the bride was shown as 17 years. She also appeared before a Judicial Magistrate at Hangu to make her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate in order to ascertain the age of the abductee got her medically examined whereupon it was discovered that she was about 18/19 years of age as claimed by her. After satisfying that the abductee Mst. Dilshad Begum was ready to make a statement without any duress or under any influence, her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, on 11-9-1997. In the aforesaid statement, the abductee Mst. Dilshad Begum stated that she was about 18/19 years of age and had come out of the house of her parents on 13-8-1997 of her on free will, empty handed and in three clothes. Thereafter she got herself married with Abdul Wahab, petitioner and was living with him as his wife. According to her, she left the house of her parents as they wanted to marry her else-where. She specifically denied that she was abducted by any one or that she had brought anything from the house of her parents, in the end she stated that she was living happily with her husband aforesaid Abdul Wahab petitioner.
2 The abductee is also present in Court today who has been identified by Ch. Azmatullah, learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Abdul Wahab. She has reaffirmed her marriage with the petitioner and claimed him to be her husband.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on Ghulam Ghaus Vs. Muhammad Amin and others (1997 SCM R 37) has submitted that the petitioner is cm. Tied to bail in view of the foregoing facts.
4. Learned counsel for the State has. However, opposed the bail on the ground that the statement of the abductee under section 164 Cr.P.C., that she had got married to the accused i.e. The abductor would not provide any good ground for releasing the abductor on hail particularly when the marriage was not attended by her parents and was solemnized. At the place outside her residential area.
5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and after taking into consideration the statement of the abductee under section 164 Cr.P.C. Which she has affirmed while appearing in this Court. 1 find that it is a case of further inquiry. I he petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum ol Rs.50,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court