Through this petition the petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 182 dated 7.8.2003 registered under Section 11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Kot Mithan Rajanpur.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that petitioner is innocent and alleged abductee namely Mst. Rukhsana is legally wedded wife of the petitioner; that co-accused of the petitioner Munir Ahmad had already been granted bail by the Court; that all the co-accused of the petitioner has also been declared innocent by the police which falsifies the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR. Lastly submits that the nikahnama of the abductee with the petitioner is admitted but now the said abductee alleges that she was forced to sign the nikahnama and thereafter she had filed a suit for justification of marriage which is pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. The factum of nikahnama dated 7.8.2003 is admitted but subsequently the alleged abductee in her statement u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. had alleged that she was forced to sign nikahnama. The genuineness or otherwise of the same would be determined by the trial Court in the civil proceeding pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It has also been noticed that there is affidavit of the same lady duly sworn wherein she had categorically stated that she is about 17 years of age and suijuris and wants to marry with her will and with her own choice, the petitioner Ghulam Farid. There are affidavits of the two witnesses namely Ghulam Asghar and Ghulam Shabbir who were nominated in the FIR and stated that they have never seen any occurrence nor they had told anything with regard to the abduction of the alleged abductee. Their names had been included in the FIR without their knowledge. Keeping in view all these facts, I am of the view that the case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry and falls within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. entitling him to be released on bail. Accordingly I accept this petition and admit'the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.