1. ' The applicants are being tried in Sessions Case No,251 of 2000, arising out of Crime No,138 of 1999, of Police Station Shaheed Fazil Rahu, under section 324, P.P.C. Read over sections 11/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. ' The brief facts are that one Khuda Dino lodged F.I.R. On 7-12-1999, stating therein that about 3/4 days prior to lodging of this F.I.R., he was sleeping in his house when at about dawn time his brother Ahmed informed him that his wife Mst. Khatoon was not available in his house. The complainant called his brother Rasool Bux and Allah Bux and formed foot tracking party. They took foot prints which were lost at the house of Eidoo Mallah. It is alleged that they had already suspicion of illicit relations of Mst. Khatoon with accused Eidoo Mallah. The complainant then made inquiries regarding the presence of accused Haji, Anwar, Ramzan, Gulo, Hyat, Umer and Basar but they were not available in their houses. Thereafter, the complainant party tried to search for the abductee Mst. Khatoon but could not get any clue and on 7-12-1999 lodged the F.I.R.
3. ' The police took-up investigation and submitted challan in the Court.
4. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the contents of F.I.R. Have been materially contradicted by abductee Mst. Khatoon in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. There is no evidence of abduction against the accused except the word of abductee girl Mst. Khatoon.
5. The contents of F.I.R. Clearly indicate that the abductee was consenting party as it is mentioned in the F.I.R. That they were already suspecting her to be on illicit connections with accused Eidoo. The F.I.R. Is belated by 3 days. The abductee girl was not recovered from the possession of accused. Her 164, Cr.P.C. Statement was recorded on 19-1-2000, wherein she has alleged that she was subjected to forcible Zina by applicant Edio. So far the allegations of abduction against accused Anwar and Hayat are concerned it is yet to be established at the time of trial and the alleged offence of abduction is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. ' Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio learned Assistant Advocate-General has opposed the bail plea of applicant Eidoo on the ground that abductee has levelled allegations of Zinabil-Jabar against him. He has conceded the bail plea of remaining two accused Anwar and Hayat on the ground that their case is distinguishable from the main accused Eidoo.
7. ' At the very outset learned counsel for the applicants does not press the bail application for accused Eidoo. The bail application of accused Eidoo is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
8. So far as the case of applicant Anwar and Hayat is concerned, their case is distinguishable from the main accused Eidoo. The contents of F.I.R. Had been materially contradicted by 164, Cr . P.0 .
9. Statement of abductee girl. The contents of F.I.R. Indicate that abductee was consenting party. The complainant has stated in his ..I.R. That they were suspecting Mst. Khatoon to be on illicit terms with accused Edioo and they might have taken her. The abductee has stated in her 164, Cr.P.C.
10. Statement that the present two applicants were with accused Edioo when she was abducted. The factum of abduction still needs consideration at the time of trial. The applicant are in custody for the last about more than 6 months. The bail plea of these two applicants is not opposed by the learned Assistant Advocate-General.
11. ' Under these circumstances there appear no reasonable grounds to believe that the case of applicants Anwar and Hayat falls under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Their case requires further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. They are granted bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one Lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
12. ' The trial Court is further directed to proceed with the case as early as possible and examine the complainant and abductee expeditiously. After examination of abductee and complainant the defence would be at liberty to repeat their bail application before the trial Court.