' This order will dispose of two connected bail applications bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,6616- B of 2002 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,6832-B of 2002, both arising out of F.I.R. No,84 of 2002 registered on 1-6-2002 in Police Station Massan, District Jhang under section 10 of the Offence (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by one Muhammad Ramzan stating therein that on 30-5-2002, he alongwith Allah Bakhsh and Ali Muhammad P.Ws. Had proceeded to Jhang and had returned back at around 10/11, p.m. In the night. His brother Muhammad Bakhsh alongwith his family members was sleeping in the courtyard of the house. On hearing some whispering from inside a residential room of his house, the complainant alongwith his companions went inside and saw in the torch light that Muhammad Ramzan was committing `Zina' with Mst. Sattan (the daughter-in-law of Allah Bakhsh, a brother of the complainant). The complainant and his companions tried to apprehend Muhammad Ramzan but he raised a lalkara' and then fled away. They tried to make Muhammad Bakhsh woke up but he was found unconscious. Similarly his wife Mst. Nooran, Muhammad Nawaz son of Allah Bakhsh, Mst. Phaphan widow of Ramzan and Mst. Tasleem Bibi daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh were all found lying unconscious. The complainant and his companions raised alarm and whereupon Ghulam Muhammad the son of the complainant and Ijaz P.W. Reached there. On 31-5-2002 all the unconscious members of the family were taken to the Civil Hospital, Haveli Sheikh Rajoo on a Tractor-trolley.
3. In the F.I.R. It was stated that Muhammad Ramzan had developed illicit relations with Mst. Sattan wife of Allah Ditta and that they had tried to restrain them but they did not mend their ways and that Mst. Sattan and Muhammad Ramzan after administering some intoxicant to all the family members committing `Zina'. Hence the matter was reported to the Police.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mst. Sattan have argued hat she is quite innocent in this case and that she has been involved in this case with a mala fide intention with the intention to protect Sultan son of the complainant who had administered some intoxicant through Mst.
Tasleem Bibi to all members of the family and had committed Zinal-bil-Jabe with Mst. Sattan and when the petitioner (Mst. Sattan) and her brother tried to get registered a case against Sultan, his father (complainant) got the petitioner involved in a false case. He has argued that the petitioner being a woman is entitled to the concession of bail. Even otherwise, there is no likelihood or her abscondence of tampering with the prosecution evidence or hei misusing the concession of bail.
He has further submitted that the brother of Mst. Sattan has filed a private complaint as well against Sultan Ahmed and Mst. Tasleem Bibi and in connection with which both the said persons had been' summoned as accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang vide his order dated 16-1-2002. He has submitted that the aforesaid fact is enough to make it a case of further enquiry and thus Mst. Sattan petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
6. The learned counsel for Muhammad Ramzan petitioner adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for Mst. Sattan petitioner and has argued that the witnesses of the alleged occurrence were chance witnesses who were brought from Jhang by the complainant and that the counter- version of the occurrence was recorded only after Writ Petition No,9794 of 2002 was filed in this Court and that it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. That. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner was equipped with any lethal weapon at the time of occurrence and as such it is improbable that the complainant and other eye-witnesses had not attempted to apprehend the culprits who had allegedly escaped. He has asserted that the petitioner who has been falsely implicated in this case is entitled to the concession of bail.
7. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have resisted the applications on the ground that both the petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R. And that they had no enmity with the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and merely the fact of filing the complaint which has been filed as a result of an afterthought, is not enough the make it a case of further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioners. Both of them have submitted that under the circumstances of the case, none of the petitioners is entitled to the concession of bail.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments.
9. So far as Muhammad Ramzan petitioner is concerned, since he is specifically named in the F.I.R.
And there is a specific allegation of Zina against him, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at the stage. Therefore, his bail application is accordingly dismissed.
10. However, so far as Mst. Sattan is concerned, although the allegation against her is the same as against Muhammad Ramzan petitioner/accused, yet she being a lady is entitled to the concession of bail on the said ground.
11. In consequence of what has been stated above, the bail application of Mst. Sattan petitioner is accepted and she is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000, with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.