' Mst. Rehana Bibi alias Shama, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No,54 dated 23-3-2003 under sections 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 read with section 380, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station City, Rajanpur.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 2/3-3-2003 at about 9-30 p.m. Muhammad Matteen and an unknown person had abducted her for Zina.
3. It has been contended on her behalf that she has falsely been roped in; that no Nikah of her was ever performed with Muhammad Arshad as alleged in the F.I.R.; that she is legally wedded wife of co-accused Muhammad Matteen; that there is no direct evidence of Zina against her; that she is a woman; that she is behind the bars since 27-3-2003; and that she is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that she had eloped with her co-accused Muhammad Matteen and, thereafter, had been committing Zina with him while her Nikah was already performed with Muhammad Arshad on 1-2-2003.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. The complainant has alleged in the F.I.R. That Muhammad Matteen alongwith an unknown person had abducted her for Zina. She has been arrayed as an accused by the police being consenting party to Zina. It has been contended by her side that her Nikah was never performed with Muhammad Arshad as mentioned in the F.I.R. She has stated to be the legally wedded wife of said Muhammad Matteen.
7. The learned State Counsel has confirmed that copy of her Nikah with Muhammad Matteen is available with the police record. He has also conceded that there is no direct evidence of Zina against her on police record.
8. Anyway, this is a case of two Nikahs of her. One with Muhammad Arsand and the other with her said co-accused Muhammad Mateen. She has owned the one with co-accused. The question that which of these Nikahnamas is correct seriously needs consideration.
9. Hence, I find that in the above circumstances, the case against her certainly requires further inquiry into her guilt and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr . P.0 .
10. Besides than this, she is a woman. So, the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Also attracted to her case.
11. She is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
12. In these circumstances, I find her entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and she is admitted to bail provided she furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur/trial Court.