MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE

ORDER

1. The present applicants have been booked in a case under sections 11/10 of Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered with Police Station Hussain Abad. Applicants moved bail application before the trial Court but without success.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24-2-2001 the complainant Muhammad Bux Jukhio was present in his house, his brothers Nadeem and Ayaz had gone to the shop, while his sister Mst. Firdous had left the house at 9-30 a.m. for school to take up the examination slip from the school. She did not return till evening, therefore, the complainant and his brothers started search of their sister. On the next day, the wife of Muhammad Ali Shaikh came to the house of the complainant and inquired about Mst. Firdous and went away. Mst. Shabana the wife of his brother informed the complainant that Mst. Firdous had told her that Muhammad Ali Shaikh was pressurizing her to keep friendship with him and on refusal he had extended threats of abduction. On 24-2-2001 he had also seen the applicant and others roaming here and there on the Alam Chowk and he got confirmation that Muhammad Ali Shaikh had abducted Wt. Firdous with the help of other co- accused.

3. I have heard Mr. Javaid I. Bukhari, learned counsel for the applicants, who has contended that there is delay of 4 days of lodging F.I.R. which goes unexplained by the prosecution. The abductee, namely Mst. Firdous has not supported the case of prosecution. Nowhere she has alleged with regard to Zina against the present applicant. He has further argued that accused Rahil Shaikh and Farooq have been let off by the Police by placing them in Column II. He has further argued that Mst. Firdous is legally wedded wife of the present applicant and has produced the affidavit of abductee Mst. Firdous, which was sworn before the 1st Class Magistrate No. II, Karachi South and has also produced a copy of Nikahnama and finally he has prayed for the grant of bail.

4. Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that although Zina has not been proved but it is a case of abduction.

5. I have gone through submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

6. I have examined the statement of abductee recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Nowhere she has implicated the present applicant. I have also gone through the affidavit of abductee sworn before the 1st Class Magistrate, Karachi South, wherein she has stated that neither she has been abducted/kidnapped nor coerced by any one. She wants to marry with the present applicant on her own free-will and sweet-desire, as he has love and affection for her, who is also ready to accept her. I have gone through Nikahnama, which has been registered on 24th February, 2001. In view of the affidavit and Nikahnama there is additional evidence being advanced by the prosecution. Particularly, there is delay of 4 days in lodging of F.I.R., which has not been explained by the prosecution; from the statement of abductee, it appears that she is a consenting party. Nevertheless, she has married with the present applicant. I have also noted that co-accused have been let off by placing them in Column II, which shows that the prosecution is not certain with regard to the involvement of the other accused. All, these questions are to be thrashed out by the trial Court at the time of trial. Prima facie, the case of the applicant is falling within the ambit of section 497, Part II, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the applicant is granted a bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

7. N.H.Q./M-261/K Bail allowed.