' A case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered at Police Station Pir Wadhai, Rawalpindi, vide F.I.R. 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 tne police. In fact, the aforesaid Mst. Dilsnad 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 they 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 abdcutee 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. Dilsnad 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 tne nouse of her parents on 13-8-1997 of her own 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 elsewhere.
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 Wanab petitioner.
2. The abductee is also present in Court today who has been identified by Ch. Azamatullah, learned counsel for the petitioner i,e, Abdul Wahab. She has reaffirmed her marriage witn the petitioner and claimed him to be her husband.
3. Learned counsel for tne petitioner while relying on Ghulam Ghaus v. Muhammad Amin and others 1997 SCM R 37 has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the foregoing facts.
4. Learned counsel for the State has, nowever, opposed the bail on the ground that tne 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 bail particularly wnen the marriage was not attended by her parents and was solemnized at a place outside her residential area.
5. I have considered the forgoing submissions and after taking into consideration the statement of the abductee under section 164, Cr.P.C. Which sne has affirmed wnile appearing in this Court, I find that it is a case of further inquiry. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 witn a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.