1. About the abduction of his wife Mst. Sakina Bibi for the purpose of illicit relations on 2-10-1995 Shaukat Ali complainant got recorded F.I.R. No,148 dated 14-3-1996 at Police Station Tandianwala, District Faislabad under Article 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. He alleged that Muhammad Sharif and Kalu petitioners-accused alongwith Ayub, Sadi Ahmad, Fateh Bibi and Mst. Ghulam Fatima took away his wife who were seen by Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Akbar P.Ws. while going away when they were told by Mst. Sakina Bibi that she was going alongwith the aforesaid persons to see her ailing father. Mst. Sakina Bibi managed to escape and on 12-6-1997 her statement was got recorded from a Magistrate 1st-Class under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when she named the aforesaid persons who fraudulently took her away. She alleged that Muhammad Sharif petitioner, Sadi Ahmad and Ayub committed fornication with her. Both Muhammad Ayub and Kalu petitioner-accused were arrested on 19-6-1997 whose bail plea has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. They have filed this petition before this Court for their admission to bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the alleged abduction is stated to have taken place on 2-10-1995 while the matter was reported to police on 14-3-1996 and, thus, the delay in the matter of registration of the case is fatal to the prosecution case on the basis of which the petitioners are entitled to be admitted to bail. I do not agree with him as I hold a different view. In this regard I would express that it is a matter of common knowledge that in abduction cases when the honour of the family is involved the people in the country do not rush to the police and try to first exhaust all their sources to trace out the whereabouts of abductee and the accused. As such this assertion is ignored.
2. 3.It was next contended that Mst. Sakina Bibi was not got medically examined and the prosecution version finds no support from the medical evidence. It would be proper to express at this stage that according to Rule 22 Chapter XXV of the Police Rules, 1934 no examination by a Medical Officer of a living woman's person shall be made without her consent and without a written order from a Magistrate addressed to the Medical Officer directing him/her to make such examination. Mst.
3. Sakina Bibi is a married lady and was having a son when allegedly she was enticed away. As rightly pointed out by the learned State Counsel the absence of evidence of the medical examination of Mst. Sakina Bibi, a married lady, is not enough to make me exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners for their admission to bail.
4. 4.Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners were arrested on 19-6-1997, that there was no allegation of Zina against Kalu petitioner-accused and that the solitary statement of Mst. Sakina Bibi is not enough for the purpose of attraction of Article 16/10 (3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. These assertions are held to he without legal weight as it has rightly been pointed out by the learned State Counsel that the F.I.R. and the statements of the P.Ws. including Mst. Sakina Bibi are enough to prima facie connect Muhammad Sharif and Kalu petitioners-accused with the occurrence.
5. 5.Muhammad Sharif petitioner is the principal accused and Kalu petitioner facilitated him in the matter. Mst. Sakina Bibi was detained by Muhammad Sharif petitioner-accused for a sufficient time which is a strong circumstance against him towards the commission of Zina.
6. 6.For what has been said above, I hold that it is not a fit case for the admission of these petitioners to bail. Consequently, I dismiss this petition.