ALLAH DITTA Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Vide FIR No.224, dated September, 1985 Police Station Saddar Jhang registered; case under the provisions of sections 10 and 16 of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance against the petitioner and six others. The FIR was lodged on the basis of statement of Mst. Mumtaz; who stated that she was living in the house of her parents after 0$quarrel with her husband. She further submitted that on 5th September, 1985, one Mst. Amiran (wife of the petitioner Allah Ditta) took her to the house of the petitioner. Mst. Amiran chained the door of the house where the petitioner committed zina with her. It was further alleged by the prosecutrix Mst. Mumtaz that during the :hight the petitioner and one Allahyar took her to Chabeel to the house of Mst. Manzooran, and from there she was taken to a tubewell where Rashid committed zina with her. It was further alleged that the petitioner and co-accused tried to sell her for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.30b/- were obtained as earnest money. It was further stated that when she was being taken to another place, the witnesses, named in the FIR, came to her rescue.

2. In course of investigations Naseer, Allahyar and Amir Bib! (wife of the petitioner) were found innocent. The petitioner Umer Hayat, Mst. 1Manzooran and Rashid were held responsible for the commission of offence. Umer Hayat and Mst. Manzooran have been released on bail. The case was investigated by four different .officers, and it is submitted that since 31h September, 1985 till 5th October, 1986 the petitioner was not arrested, because there was some doubt about the involvement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 25th October, 1986 and the challan has not yet been submitted. The Investigating Officer present in Court submits that the challan is ready, but the District Attorney pointed out certain defects which are to be rectified. Sheikh Afzaal Hussain learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is responsible for the commission of offence which falls within the purview of prohibitory clause to section 497 of the Cr. P. C. It is further submitted by Sheikh Afzaal Hussain that the petitioner had also transacted the sale of the Mst. Mumtaz.

3. Be that as it may, the tenor of FIR reveals that Mst. Mumtaz, prima. facie, is also a party to the commission of offence and since the wife of the petitioner was declared innocent who was responsible to induce Mst. Mumtaz to accompany her, the case in my view, becomes one of further enquiry. I would, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to the furnishing of bail' bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang. The Investigating Officer present in Court is directed to submit the challan in this case within one week. The Trial Court is directed that the trial in this case should be held expeditiously. Since the occurrence took place in 1985, the Trial Court shall conclude the trial within a period of six months and shall also submit the fortnightly progress report about the trial to this Court.

4. S.G.D./A-110/L Bail granted.