ORDER DR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL, J.
The petitioner is involved in case FIR No. 418/1999, dated 26.10.1999 for an offence u/S. 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Saddar Gojra.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.10.1999 the daughter of the complainant (petitioner) aged about 16/17 years old at 11/12 a.m. Was washing clothes on the Government water channel. She-felt the call of nature and went in the nearby sugar-cane crop situated in Sq. No. 53, Killa No. 5, meanwhile the co-accused Muhammad Ashraf while passing from there saw the daughter of the complainant alone entering in the sugar-cane crop and he went after her there.
He committed Zina-bil- Jabr with Mst. Sadaf the petitioner. The victim raised hue and cry and on the alarm the witnesses namely Shah Nawaz, Muhammad Islam and Shan residents of the village were attracted at the spot and saw Muhammad Ashraf committing zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Sadar.
The co-accused Muhammad Ashraf was apprehended on the spot and he was taken towards the Dera of Shan PW. Afterwards, the complainant Muhammad Javaid reached there on the Dera of Shan and the complainant in "Ghairat" did hurt to Muhammad Ashraf and abused him. The occurrence was narrated to the police and the local police arrested the co-accused of the petitioner. Hence the case was registered. She was nominated as an accused subsequently.
3. The bail was moved before the Teamed Addl. Sessions Judge, Gojra which has been dismissed with the observation that the offence under Section 10(2) of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 is an heinous offence.
4. The bail is now pressed on the ground that a false case has been registered against the co- accused Muhammad Ashraf due to enmity of PWs while she has been involved mala fidley, in her submission of affidavits before the Court exonerating the co-accused and that such incident of Zina- bil-Jabr has not happened in the area of Chak No. 246/G.B. And the Petitioner is innocent and that the complainant and her daughter (petitioner) Mst. Sadar victim has not supported the version of the prosecution as stated in the FIR because on that particular day and time such incident has not occasioned and therefore the case of the petitioner is Of further inquiry as the witnesses enumerated in the FIR are inimical and hostile towards the co-accused and they managed a false story and involved the petitioner in this false case due to enmity. In this way the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry and that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and she is no more required by the Police and that she is a lady and the petitioner is previous non-convict and that there is no likelihood of influencing the witnesses by the petitioner.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has supported the order of the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Gojra.
6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both basis.
7. Admittedly, Muhammad Javaid and Mst. Sadaf Javaid had filed their affidavits before the.
Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gojra that when the real facts were asked by Muhammad Javaid from her daughter, she had .Informed him that no incident of Zina had occurred and that it is on account of the enmity of Shah Nawaz, Muhammad Islam and Shan that false case was got registered. This makes the case of that of further inquiry. As such the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.