Muhammad Naeem, the petitioner through the instant petition seeks cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.2 Muhammad Sarwar by Mr. Nazir Ahmad Gajana, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala vide his order dated 6-5-2003 in case F.I.R. No. 83 dated 22-3-2003, under sections 10(2)/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), registered with Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that said case was got registered by the petitioner Muhammad Naeem. He has alleged therein that on the night between 20/21-2-2003 Abdul-Karim, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Yasin while armed with lethal weapons had forcibly abducted his maternal cousin Mst. Salma Bibi alias Pappu for Zina--- bil-Jabr with her.
3. Mst. Salma Bibi alias Pappu subsequently has been arrayed as an accused in the instant case being consenting party to Zina.
4. Respondent No.2 had moved for bail in the case. The same was granted by the said learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala vide his aforementioned order dated 6-5-2003.
5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the same has come up with this petition praying for cancellation of the same.
6. It has been contended on his behalf that respondent No.2 alongwith his co --accused after being armed with lethal weapon had gone to the house of the complainant and they therefrom had forcibly abducted his said cousin for Zina-bil-Jabr; and that in such circumstances, he had played an active role in the commission of the crime and so he- was not entitled to the relief of bail.
7. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone through the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
8. As said above, the allegation against him as contained in the F.I.R. Is that he alongwith his aforesaid co-accused while armed with lethal weapons on the above said date and time had forcibly abducted the said maternal cousin of the petitioner-complainant from his house for Zina- bil-Jabr with her. As mentioned above that she herself has now been arrayed as an accused in the case being consenting party to Zina. Keeping in view the such development in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to extend him the relief of bail. This has not been disputed that in fact the alleged abductee stands arrayed as an accused in the case being consenting party to such affair. Hence, it would yet to be seen that if the story of her abduction as contained in the F.I.R. Is correct or that she herself had eloped with her co-accused. From this angle, his case falls within the purview of further inquiry as envisaged by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. Hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not at all fall in error in extending him the relief of bail. The petition, therefore, has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine.