' A case under section 10, Offence of Zina. (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is registered against the petitioner and one Muhammad Anwar alias Jadu as they were committing Zina in a room of Board of Revenue near the main gate of Farid Kot House. Lahore. The complainant Gulzar Ahmad and Muhammad Shafique Bajwa Inspector Anti-Corruption, Narowal who were present there in connection with some inquiry came to know about the commission of Zina. They went to the spot and saw through holes that a woman and a man were committing Zina with each other.
They got the room opened and apprehended them on the spot.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations in the F.1.R., were not only imaginary but concocted as both the petitioner and her co-accused were innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the two witnesses who are allegedly inimical as they belonged to rival party. In fact, the petitioner and her co-accused were called for effecting some compromise in some matter, but instead of effecting compromise they were falsely involved in this case.
3. Lastly relying on Riaz v. Station House Officer, Police Station, bang City and 2 others reported as PLD 1998 Lab. 35, it was contended that there was no justification for the intrusion of the. P. Ws. In the privacy of the petitioner even if they suspected that some sin was being committed. In this respect, reliance was placed on verses 27 and 28 of Surah An-Nur, which have been quoted in verbatim in the reported authority to show that nobody should enter the house of another Muslim without seeking prior permission. Likewise, interpretation of Surah Al-Hujrat made by Maulana Maududi in Tahfeemul Qur'an was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that it was not befitting of. a ' Moman' to be curious to find out evils in others. The interpreted version of Tahfeemul Qur'an was also quoted---in respect of Surah Al-Hujrat.
4. By making reference to the above authority the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to show that complainant and other P.W. Were not justified to search for the alleged sin of the petitioner and hdr co-accused. It was, therefore, submitted that the complainant not only violated Islamic Injunctions but also cooked up a false story against a woman who was the mother of 6 children and was not likely to indulge in such like sin. Reliance was also placed by producing a photo copy of order recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1286-B of 1986, Lahore that statement of the victim should have been recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. To get the correct version about the occurrence. In the absence of any such statement, the story of the prosecution remains lacking.In truth.
5. The bail application was opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that in the reported case, nobody is permitted to enter the house of another person without seeking permission under the Muslim law. However, in the instant case, it was not the house of petitioner or her co-accused, but it was a public office, a room of which was .Being used for committing Zina and was such the complainant or the other P.W. Did not commit any sin or illegality even under the Islamic law to catch the accused red handed while they were committing Zina with each other at a place meant for public use. It was, therefore, urged that facts of the reported case very clearly distinguishable from the facts of case in hand as it was also ordained by Islam that it is the duty of a Muslim to condemn and to. Prevent 'Fahashi' and to promote Taqva' by recognizing good deeds.
Since the petitioner and her co-accused had indulged in a crime under Hudood, therefore, the complainant and the P.W., were justified to apprehend them for committing Zina-bil-Razz.' Likewise, the facts stated in the reported case referred to above were also allegedly distinguishable because, there the victim was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr whereas in the instant case the petitioner was a willing partner in the illicit intercourse. As such allegedly there was no necessity for getting her statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C .
6. I have considered the foregoing submissions raised at the Bar. The petitioner along with her co- accused were caught red handed in a room of the building of Board of Revenue. It was a public place and the co-accused of the petitioner was an employee being a Driver in the Board of Revenue could have easy access to a room for using it for the sinful purpose. As such, the place of Zina in the instant case is clearly distinguishable being a part of public office from the place, which may be a house as is the reported case. In such a situation, it becomes the duty of a Muslim to condemn such type of sin if committed at the place like the spot in question, and also to take steps to prevent commission of such offence at such place.
7. The prosecution has collected enough evidence to link both the petitioner and her co-accused with the occurrence. The mere fact that the petitioner is a married woman having 6 children that one of her daughter is being married would not create any extenuating circumstance in her favour as she appears to be on the wrong path. There is nothing on record so far to substantiate her plea that she had been brought to the place of occurrence for effecting compromise because no dispute is clearly annotated for which the alleged compromise was to take place. Even otherwise, this may be a defence story to be substantiated at the trial, but at present there seems to-be no force in it keeping in view the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency which clearly links petitioner with her co-accused for the commission of Zina-bil-Raza.'.`The mere fact that the report of vaginal swa bs has not so far been received would not be enough to create a ground for the grant of bail. The bail petition is accordingly dismissed.