Mst. Shamshad Mai petitioner has sought her pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.50 registered at Police Station City, Ahmadpur East on 4-2-2003 for an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Subsequently, section 10(2) of the said Ordinance was added during the investigation.
2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner who is sister of the complainant was married with one Muhammad Afzal but the Rukhsati had not taken place and she was staying in the house of the complainant. Muhammad Rafique co-accused who is cousin of the complainant as well as of the petitioner developed intimacy with the petitioner and was stopped by the complainant to visit his house. On 11-1-2003 when the complainant returned to his house the petitioner was found missing.
During search for his sister the P. Ws. Informed the complainant that Mst. Shamshad Mai was seen in the company of Muhammad Rafiq co-accused. The complainant approached the accused who promised to return Mst. Shamshad Mai, however, this promise was not fulfilled and the matter was reported to the police.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the F.I.R. Are false and the complainant got the case registered when the petitioner refused to play to his tunes; that the petitioner is lawfully wedded were of Muhammad Rafiq, who has been named as accused in the case and Nikahnama to that effect stands registered. He has further argued that Muhammad Afzal who has been shown as husband in the F.I.R. Has divorced Shamshad Mai. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application and has argued that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. And it was stated in the F.I.R. That the petitioner had developed illicit relationship with co-accused Muhammad Rafiq and thereafter eloped with him that the petitioner entered into Nikah with Muhammad Rafiq co-accused 17 days after her elopement with him and that the petitioner did not deserve the extraordinary concession of bail. The learned counsel for the State has adopted the line of arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner has joined the investigation, except for bald allegation leveled by the complainant there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had been committing Zina with Muhammad Rafiq co-accused in the house of the complainant. The police has recorded the statements of two witnesses namely Rahim Bakhsh and Abdul Aziz on 22-2-2003 who, according to their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., had seen both the accused nude on 18-1-2003. Such statements are not worth the price of piece of papers they are recorded on. These two P. Ws. Never reported this incident to the complainant till the registration of case and their names are not mentioned in F.I.R. It appears to be padding on the part of the police. According to the Nikahnama Annexure 'E' of this petition the petitioner who is sui juris has entered into marriage with Muhammad Rafiq on 27-1- 2003 having been divorced by Muhammad Afzal whose affidavit has been placed on the record of the case. The matter was reported to the police after a delay of 24 days. The petitioner is a woman and prima facie it appears that the complainant who feels unhappy over the marriage of his sister with Muhammad Rafiq A co-accused has reported the matter to the police and has leveled exaggerated allegations against the petitioner.
5. The upshot of the whole discussion is that I confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 28-3-2003 subject to her furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within two weeks.