ORDERPetitioner Abdul Ghafoor seeks bail in F.I.R. No. 88 of 1998 registered with Police Station, Chitiana, District Toba Tek Singh, under Section I6 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 read with Sections 380/457/365 PPC.
2. The allegation as contained in the F.I.R, lodged at the instance of Abdul Majeed is that on the night between 16/17.11.1997 h,e was sleeping in his house alongwith other inmates, when the petitioner accompanied by 6/7 persons armed with deadly weapon entered into his house and forcibly took his daughter Mst. Kausar Bibi and while going golden ornaments weighing six tolas alongwith 10,000/- rupees in cash and ten gents suits were also extracted. It was stated that a suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by Mst. Kausar Bibi was pending in the Family Court against Muhammad Irshad one of the co-accused. This case was registered on 30.5.1998.
3. The post-arrest bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on19.9.1998.
4. Learned counsel,for the petitioner contends that Section I6 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) alongwith Section 380- PPC were deleted, whereas Section 365 PPC is not applicable against Irshad who happens to be her husband and the marriage still subsists. It is stated that the suit for dissolution of marriage between the parties was voluntarily withdrawn and the lady Mst. Kausar Bibi resided with her husband but due to estrangement between the husband and wife as repraisal, the aforesaid case has been lodged against the petitioner alongwith his other family members.To-Extra-judicial confession-Evidence-Further enquiry-Petitioners have been roped in on basis of extra-judicial confession which is a weak type of evidence as held by Supreme Court in a certain judgment-Without commenting any further lest it may prejudice case of either party the petitioners' case appears to be one of further enquiry-As such the petitioner is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.One lac each with one surety each in the like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court-Bail admitted.(Paras 6,7)e1*For the Petitioners: Malik Muhammad Shabhir Langrial, Advocate.For the Complainant: Muhammad Maqsood, Advocate.For the State: Mehr Muhammad Saleem, Advocate.Dale of hearing: 2nd September, 1998.ORDERDR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL, J.- The two petitioners are involved in case F.I.R. No. 253/97, dated 17.9.1997 for offences under Sections 302 M 09 PPC registered at Police Station, Mailsi. District Vehari on the statement of Manzoor Ahmad alleging that on the night of occurrence Mushtaq Ahmad woke up, his father Khuda Bakhsh at 12.00 in the night on account of lunar eclipse and after giving Rs.10/- for charity Khuda Bakhsh again slept and when at about 5.00 a.m. Irshad Ahmad brother of the complainant went to woke up his father for offering Fajar prayer and found him dead having injury on his eye.2. Earlier the bail application of the petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran ride order dated 6.4.1998.*3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case and that they were not nominated in the F.I.R, and that the extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and that the so called recovery of gun was inconsequential and the same did not match with the crime empty and that the so called witness Khadim Hussain before whom the petitioner had made extra judicial confession has sworn an affidavit connecting the prosecution version and that Ghulam Sarwar the brother of the deceased before whom alleged extra judicial confession is said to have been has instituted a complaint against Manzoor Ahmad and three others for the murder of his father Khuda Bakhsh and that the investigation is complete and the petitioners are no more required for that purpose.4. On the other hand learned counsel for the Slate has opposed the petition ind submitted that the petitioners had a motive against the deceased tis one yearprior to the occurrence Ahmad Yar had abducted the daughter of Khuda Bakhsh .For which a case of abduction was registered against him and his nephew Jind Wadda and that the police had raided at the house of Ahmad Yar whereupon Xlimad Yar had fired at the complainant and Khuda Bakhsh and as such Ahmad Yar nurshed grudge. '5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both thesides.6. The petitioners have been roped in on the basis of extra judicial confession which is a weak type of evidence as held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarfraz Khan v. The Stare & 2 others (1996 S.C.M.R. 188). One of the alleged witness of the extra judicial confession has sworn an affidavit negating the prosecution story. In Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja versusThe State (1991 S.C.M.R. Ill) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan granted bail to the accused on the ground that the prosecution witness appeared in the Court and supported the averments made in the affidavit.7. Without commenting any further lest it may prejudice the case of either party the petitioner's case appears to be one of further inquiry. As such, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.One lac each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.