' The petitioner is required as accused person in case F.I.R. No,188, dated 18-11-1998, under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, registered with Police Station Chutiana, District Toba Tek Singh, at the instance of Abrar Ahmad, brother of Mst. Ishrat abductee.
2. Bail has been sought on the ground that the petitioner in fact got married to Mst. Ishrat who at the time of marriage was 21 years of age. Learned Sessions Judge in his order, dated 14-1-1999 rejected the application observing that the alleged abductee had made a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Admitting that she had developed relations with the petitioner and in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. As well, she had solemnized Nikah with the petitioner with her free consent. Learned Sessions Judge, however, observed that even if that may be admitted that she had married the petitioner on 14-11-1998, then she according to her own showing kept on committing Zina with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be extended the concession of bail. Learned counsel however, argues that if the statement of the alleged abductee is accepted and the petitioner is held liable then the abductee would be more liable for the offence as she had herself admitted in her statement that she had developed illicit liaison with the petitioner. Mst.
Ishrat has not been proceeded against rather it is only the petitioner who is being prosecuted and is confined in the judicial lock-up since 10-12-1998. The challan has not been submitted in Court so far and according to learned counsel, there is no sufficient material available to the prosecution to submit challan against him.
3. Considering that Mst. Ishrat has made self-contradictory and inconsistent statements, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. It is also admitted that the alleged abductee was major and was capable of contracting marriage. The case against the petitioner as such is open to further inquiry. The petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned A.C./Judicial Magistrate of the area.
4. Any observation made in this order is purely of tentative nature and will not in any manner influence of trial Court.