' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicants/accused are facing trial before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) under section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. It arose out of F.I.R. No,7 of 2000 of Police Station Federal "B" Inkdustrial Area, Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed by the complainant Allah Ditta in the F.I.R.
Lodged on 20-1-2000 are that the Nikah of his daughter Mst. Samina was solemnized with his nephew Azhar son of Ghulam about six years back. On the fateful day he was on duty and his wife went for purchasing household articles. On return his wife Mst. Sughran Bibi saw that applicant/accused Sabir, Muhammad Rafiq, Ghulam Rasool and Mst. Jannat Bibi were going in a vehicle. She signalled them to stop but they accelerated speed of the vehicle, therefore, she could not note the number of the vehicle. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that his daughter Mst. Samina was kidnapped by the applicant/accused Sabir son of Saifal with the help of co-accused named hereinabove.
3. During the course of investigation the applicants/accused were arrested and sent up to stand trial. The applicants/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but it was declined by impugned order, dated 7-3-2000:
4. I have heard Syed Mujahid Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant/accused, Mr. Muhammad Noman Khan, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Habibur Rasheed, on behalf of Advocate-General for the State. The latter concedes to the grant of bail. I have also perused the material placed on record as well as police papers with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
5. The perusal of record shows that the alleged abductee Mst. Yasmeen alias Samina was produced by the Investigating Officer before the learned IXth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi, on 8-2- 2000 for the purpose of her 164, Cr.P.C. Statement. The alleged abductee has deposed in her 164, Cr.P.C. Statement that she was not kidnapped or abducted by any person nor any forceful act of sexual intercourse was committed with her. She has further stated in her- statement that complainant (father) wanted to marry her with someone against her will and wish, therefore, she left the house of her parents and performed Nikah with the applicant/accused Sabir Hussain. The medical certificate reveals that no mark of violence was found on her person and that she is aged about 25 years. The F.I.R. Is belated by 12 days and no plausible explanation with regard to this inordinate delay has been given by the prosecution in the F.I.R. Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for ten years. Moreover, section 494, P.P.C. Is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable with the permission of the Court. It is not revealed as yet whether offence falls under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 or under section 494, P.P.C., which is yet to be determined by the trial Court upon the evidence adduced by the parties. In this context I am fortified by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State reported in PLD 1995 SC 34.
6. Consequently, the case of the applicants/accused necessitates further inquiry and the applicants/accused are granted bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one hundred thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.