' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,181 of 1999 registered under section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, No,VII of 1979 at Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly stated the facts according to the prosecution story are that the complainant had reported that on the day of occurrence Mst. Naziran wife of Sultan and Rehmat Bibi wife of Abdul Khaliq came to his house and took Mst. Halima Bibi with them on the pretext to purchase bangles and providing of meat on Eid-ul-Azha festival. When her daughter did not turn up till morning he started searching her. He along with witnesses went to Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Ali accused who told them that Sarwar and Sultan had taken away the abductee. Abdul Khaliq petitioner confessed his guilt and promised to 'search Mst. Halima.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two months and there is no direct evidence of abduction against the petitioner and he further contended that there is no direct evidence of Zina against him and there is a delay of lodging the F.I.R. Of about 6 months and no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant for the delay.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. But no direct evidence of abduction of Mst.
Haleema is available on the record. There are no witnesses named in the F.I.R. Who have seen the petitioner taking away Mst. Haleema. The only evidence available on the record is the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein two witnesses have stated that the petitioner has made extrajudicial confession before them. This evidence is a weak type of evidence. There are no sufficient grounds to believe the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two months and no more required by the police for further investigation. The abductee had been recovered and her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Has not been recorded so far by the prosecution. The case of the petitioner is of further inquiry.
' In view of the above discussion and without prejudicing the merits of the case I accept this petition and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.