1. ' The applicant is involved in a case under section 11/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
2. Ordinance, 1979, arising out of Crime No,76 of 1999 of Police Station Bakrani.
3. ' The complainant Ali Muhammad on 15-8-1999, lodged F.I.R. With Police Station Bakrani narrating therein that on 13-8-1999, at about 9-00 p.m. He alongwith other inmates were sitting in the courtyard of their house and the electric bulbs were flashing. It is stated that accused Mehar; Zulfiqar, Nadir armed with guns, Dhigano armed with pistol, Mst. Maryam, Mst. Alam, Mst. Nooran and Mst. Shamul entered their house. The said four female accused dragged Mst. Zameeran daughters of complainant and the male accused kept standing over the complainant party. The complainant party raised cries which attracted their reiauves Haji bakhshal and Sajjan, ,the sons of complainant. Thereafter, the'complainant went out 01 the house and found that the accused had taken Mst. Zameeran in a Datsun, which was parked outside the house. The complainant informed Nekmard Haji Ali Ghoher Khan and after consultation with him lodged the present F.I.R.
4. ' The police after registration of the F.I.R. Took up investigation and arrested the present accused on 5-11-1999.
5. ' It is contended that the F.I.R. Is lodged after the delay of 48 hours and no plausible explanation is furnished by the complainant. The affidavit sworn by abductee girl Mst. Zameeran before City Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., Hyderabad on 24-5-1999 has been produced on record as well as the photostat copy of Nikahnama of Mst. Zameeran with accused Mehar. It is argued that the abductee girl was living with Mehar since May, 1999 and after three months the complainant party has managed with police and got this F.I.R. Registered against all the family members of accused Mehar. It is stated that so far section 11 is concerned, there is no such allegation of Zina against the present accused. At the most, the allegation of enticement of victim girl can be applied against the present accused and the offence would fall under section 16 of Zina, Hudood Ordinance, as such the offence would come out of the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is stated that the victim girl is a consenting party and has married on her own accord with accused Mehar. The present accused has no helping hand with him but the complainant party in order to pressurise them has implicated all the family members including the four females. It is argued that the case of present accused requires further enquiry.
6. ' Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahiyo learned counsel appearing for the State has strongly opposed this bail application on the ground that the hand of victim girl was demanded for accused Mehar but the complainant has refused and due to the said annoyance, the girl has been abducted. He has stated that the girl has not yet been recovered and, therefore, this is not a case for bail.
7. The arguments to the effect that victim is living with accused Mehar since May, 1999 and has married with him on her own accord has a great force in it as the same gets support from affidavit as well as Nikahnama. On 24-5-1999, she appeared before First Class Magistrate at Hyderabad and sworn affidavit. Her photo is affixed thereon. It was much before the alleged abduction.
8. Incident alleged to have taken place on 13-8-1999. Likewise the Nikahnama is registered on 24-5- 1999. In her affidavit, she has stated that she was betrothed with Mehar who is cousin of her mother but later on, her parents did not fulfil that commitment and wanted to marry her with one old man.
9. The genuineness of these two documents is yet to be evaluated at the time of trial but the same at this stage cannot altogether be ignored. So far section 11 is concerned, the girl is married with accused Mehar and there are no allegations of Zina against the present applicant. Section 16 of Zina, Hudood Ordinance carried punishment of seven years only and is not covered by prohibitory clause. The complainant had involved all the male and female members of the family of accused party.
10. ' In view of all these facts and circumstances at this stage, the false involvement of accused cannot be ruled out. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the present accused has been guilty of any non-bailable offence. As such his case requires further enquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. He is granted bail the sum of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.