' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that offence does not fall within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that petitioner was arrested in this case on 23-1-2002, that he remained on physical remand but the alleged abductee was not recovered. He has relied upon 1982 PCr.LJ 1192; 1984 PCr.LJ 675; KLR 1998 & 1999 36 & 534.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that challan has been submitted in the trial Court, that petitioner has been found guilty, and that in fact it is not a case of section 16 but 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Case was registered against five accused, four have been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As far as, present petitioner is concerned, he remained on physical remand for 14 days but the abductee was not recovered and for the reason best known to the Investigating Officer that he did not effect the recovery of abductee which is still not available. No useful purpose can be served by detaining the present petitioner further, even offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like- amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, if and when the alleged abductee is recovered and she levelled allegation of Zina against the petitioner then either the State or the complainant can move, for cancellation of bail.