KHAWAJA MOHAMMAD SHARIF, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner first of all married Shahnaz Kausar on 11.5.1990. Later on he divorced said Shahnaz Kausar on 26.3.1994.
Thereafter, Allah Rakha, petitioner married Parveen Akhtar, sister of the complainant on 30.5.1994.
Again petitioner, married Shahnaz Kausar on 19.8.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had married Shahnaz Kausar' according to Sharia and out of wedlock a son was bom and no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that in fact petitioner is living with Shahnaz Kausar without any legal marriage and in fact he is liable to be punished under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. 1 nave asked Mian Shahid Iqbal, AAG to assist me in this case. He had read out before me the opinion of District Attorney, Faisalabad. According to which, the spouses namely, Allah Rakha and Shahnaz Kausar are living according to Sharia and their marriage is a legal one.
3. I have heard the learned counsel tor the parties at length and have also gone through the record.
4. Not conceding but for the sake of arguments, the second Nikah of the petitioner with Shahnaz Kausar is not a void one but it can be called as irregular and after the opinion of the District Attorney, Faisalabad, in this behalf, I think that the case of the petitioner is covered by Section 497(2), Cr.P.C, which requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, In this view of the circumstances, interim bail before arrest already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed.