1. ' The applicant is facing trial under section 11/16, Zina Hudood Ordinance arising out of Crime No, 31 of 1999 of Police Station, Fareed Abad in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar.
2. ' The prosecution story as narrated by complainant Haji Ghulam Muhammad is that on 21-5-1999 he alongwith his nephew Mashooque Ali son of Haji Trooh and others inmates of the house went to sleep and at about 1-00 a.m. They woke up on some noise and found the present applicant armed with rifle, Abdul Karim armed with gun and Abdul Sattar armed with rifle, intruded their house. It is alleged that the present applicant dragged his maternal niece Mst. Zulekhan outside the house.
3. They identified the accused on electricity light which was at that time on.
4. 'The complainant on the next day lodged first information report as stated above. The statement of abductee girl namely Mst. Zulekhan recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Is produced on record which reveals that on the night of incident she was sleeping in her house when at about mid-night present applicant with accused namely Shabbir, Zatoo and Shaber who were armed with weapons came and forcibly took her in a car. She was kept confined in a room for about 12 days. She has further stated in her statement that they tried to commit Zina with her but she beseached them for sake of Holy Qur'an and then no such act was committed. She has further stated that on one night inmates of the house were sleeping when she managed to slip away and went to the house of her maternal uncle Ghulam Nabi who produced her before the police.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for applicant has contended that so far offence of Zina is concerned that has admittedly not taken place although the abductee girl allegedly was on the mercy of accused. So far the abduction is concerned that version of complainant Haji Ghulam Muhammad is materially contradicted by the prosecutrix. She has taken the names of Shabbir and Shaber who were allegedly accompanied by the present applicant. The complainant on the other hand has taken the names of one Abdul Karim and Abdul Sattar who are said to be allegedly accompanied by the present applicant. Learned counsel next contended that the applicant is implicated due to enmity and the F.I.R. Is belated by about more than 15 hours but no explanation has been furnished by the complainant.
6. ' Mr. Surahio learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that offence would fall under section 18 of Zina Hudood Ordinance.
7. The perusal of record shows that initial version of abduction as narrated by complainant Haji Ghulam Muhammad in F.I.R. Is materially contradicted by the prosecutrix Mst. Zulekhan. It appears that the incident has not taken place in the manner as stated in F.I.R. And 164, Cr.P.C. Statement.
8. The prosecutrix may be a consenting party as appears from record.
9. ' In view of the two conflicting versions of incident first given by complainant and other one by prosecutrix who are the main prosecution witnesses, it is yet to be seen as to whether any one of the versions has some truth in it or still the fact is otherwise.
10. ' The reference can be had to a case of Muhammad Raheem and another v. Baita Gul and another PLD 1994 Supreme Court 86 wherein their Lordships have held as under:-- "Tariq Nawaz who is a young boy of 16 or 17 years, first made a complaint against his brother-in-law and then in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Resiled from it and accused the petitioners. In the absence of any direct evidence, except the statement of Tariq Nawaz on record, so far, there does not' seem to be any other effective material to reasonably connect the petitioners with the offence. The petitioners have denied to have made any extra-judicial confession therefore, in the absence of any other direct evidence against them, on the basis of such alleged confession bail cannot be cancelled. In view of these facts it calls for further inquiry."
11. ' The reference can also be had to a case of Muhammad Jaffar v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1339 in which his Lordship has observed as under:--- "In view of the above circumstances it be said that there are two versions of the incident and it has yet to be decided as to which of the two versions, is correct, Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo has relied on an unreported decision of Supreme Court in Criminal Petition No, 76-K of 1978 (Criminal Appeal No, 1-K of 1985) in which the facts were that there were two versions about the role assigned to the respondent, first in the F.I.R. And then in the direct complaint. It was held by the Supreme Court that under such circumstances the respondent was entitled to bail. The ratio of the above decision is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Mr. Abdul Sattar, A.A.-G. Has also conceded that in view of the conflicting version of the incident, the applicant is entitled to bail."
12. The applicant has made out a case of further enquiry ad at present there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of any non-bailable offence.
13. ' Under the reasons and circumstances as stated above, the bail is granted to the accused in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.