ZAFAR IQBAL Versus State
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.313 of 2004, dated 1-7-2004 under sections 16 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 of Police Station Banghdad-ul-Jadeed District Bahawalpur.
2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. by the complainant that her daughter Robina Bibi accompanied the petitioner to Bazar for purchasing some articles, with her permission. However, later on, she did not come back to the house and on hectic efforts, it came to her knowledge that the petitioner had taken her away for committing Zina with her. It is further stated that the Nikah of said Robina Bibi has already been solemnized with Gut Sher son of Abdul Sattar on 13-10-2003. After recovery of Mst. Robina Bibi, section 10(3) of the Ordinance has also been added with reference to her statement made under section 161, Cr.P.C. before the Police.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. There is delay of 12 days in lodging the F.I.R., not convincingly explained; a bare reading of the F.I.R. shows that the complainant has allowed her daughter Mst. Robina Bibi to accompany the petitioner to Bazar for purchasing some articles; that petitioner claimed to have married with said Mst. Robina Bibi on 21-6-2004 before registration of the impugned criminal case; that said Mst. Robina Bibi had earlier field a private complaint under sections 4521506, P.P.C. against the present complainant and others. Her statement was recorded on oath by the learned Magistrate wherein she had acknowledged her Nikah with the petitioner and she had also made satisfactory replies with reference to the Court questions as is evident from proceeding of the said Court, dated 23-6-2004; that in an application moved under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. against the S.H.O., Police Station Baghdad-ul-Jadeed, Bahawalpur (now, Investigating Officer of the present case), she had also admitted her Nikah with the petitioner and in the comments submitted by the said S.H.O., he had not stated anything about the present occurrence rather assured the Court that he would not cause any harassment to her. It had also been specifically stated in his comments that as a matter of fact, her father had not taken her marriage with the petitioner in good taste; that Mst. Robina Bibi had also applied for the pre-arrest bail in this criminal case and in the application so moved, she had also negated the version of the prosecution as incorporated in the F.I.R.; that a case vide F.I.R. No.261 of 2004, dated 30-8-2004 has been registered on the complaint of the present petitioner under sections 365, 148 and 149, P.P.C. against the present complainant and others for forcible takin g away of Mst. Robina Bibi from the premises of the District Courts; that in the statement of the petitioner after having been taken away by the complainant party before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur in a petition moved by the petitioner under section 491, Cr.P.C. she had simply denied her Nikah with the present petitioner but not levelled any allegation of forcible Zina, however, allegation of Zina has been levelled by in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded by the Police, on 30-7-2004.
5. All the above factors taken together, particularly the divergent statements of Mst. Robina Bibi, prima facie, bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry. Hence, this petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, it is made clear that this order shall not affect the case of either party qua the suits now pending in different Courts.
H.B.T./Z-109/L Bail granted.