MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Complainant lodged a report on 30-5-1987 at 1.50 p.m. at Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore, to the effect that he was a Manager of the Gulf Hotel, Chowk Islamia, Lahore and while he was attending a phone-call at 1.30 p.m., a boy and a girl whose particulars were to be known latter, entered the hotel and without getting an entry (registration) went upstairs. He thought that they would come back for registration. After waiting for half an hour, with two persons who had come to make a telephone call, went to Room No. 1 and found the boy and the girl unclothed committing Zina. A case under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered vide F.I.R. No. 145/87.
2. The petitioner and the girl were arrested on 30-5-1987. They applied for bail. The girl has been allowed bail but the application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 23-6-1987. Petitioner has filed this application for bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prosecution story is false altogether; it is unbelievable that the offence was being committed without the door of the room being bolted; that the two witnesses are stock witnesses; and that circumstantial evidence is of no value. The case of the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel, is that he was an employee of the Hotel and the girl is a daughter of the sister of petitioner's wife and was to go to his house. He being busy asked her to wait and the complainant tried to molest her whereupon a quarrel had ensued and the complainant being an influential person got a false case registered against the petitioner. Relationship aforesaid was brought to the notice of the investigating- agency. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.
4. The petitioner is behind the bars eversince his arrest. Co-accused Mst. Sheeman is the daughter of petitioner's) sister-in-law. She has been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The case appears to be one of further inquiry specially in view of the relationship. No useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in jail. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each in the like amount. to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
M. Y.H./M-376/L Bail granted.