MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus STATE

ORDER

This is a post-arrest bail application by Muhammad Mushtaq petitioner in case F.I.R. No.313, dated 17-6-1993 Police Station Factory Area under sections 452, 342, 148, 149, P.P.C. read with section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The petitioner filed bail application which was rejected by order, dated 16-10-1993 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith others forcibly took away Zubeda Bibi with him on the night between 16th and 17th of June, 1993 and she returned back early in the morning with injured condition. During investigation four named accused were found innocent leaving the petitioner and one other as accused persons. The other co-accused is Muhammad Hanif whose application for bail has already been rejected by the Court below and it is stated in the order, dated 16-10-1993 that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of co-accused Muhammad Hanif. The allegations as recorded in the F.I.R. and taken note of by the learned lower Court are that the petitioner, armed with a carbine, was proceeding to the house of the complainant and forcibly took away Zubeda Bibi and she returned back to her house with injured condition. It was observed in the order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner that the parties agreed to decide the case on Holy Qur'an and oath was provided and thereafter the Investigating Officer has declared the petitioner as an accused in this case.

3. It was also observed that at the time of medical examination vaginal swabs were taken and transmitted for report of the Chemical Examiner which is positive and there was as many as 8 injuries on the person of Zubeda Bibi when she returned back. It was observed by the lower Court that provisions of section 457, P.P.C. and Article 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 are fully attracted in this case. However, this finding in the bail order are tentative and cannot affect the merits of the case. In view of this the bail application of the petitioner was rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner has committed offence of Zina-bil-Jabr and that the girl being of doubtful character the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. I am afraid I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the two suppositions advanced by the learned counsel. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the girl was taken away from the house of the complainant where the petitioner armed with carbine was present. As a result of the investigation the petitioner has been cited as accused person and the challan, according to the learned State counsel has been submitted on 1-11-1993 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura.

5. As to the plea of the petitioner branding the girl as doubtful character, no finding on this can be given as it was the trial Court to determine the case on merits. The learned counsel through out has been repeating that allegation of Zina has not been levelled against him in the F.I.R. This plea is again devoid of any force as the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Even the report about the vaginal swabs is positive. The learned counsel has not been able to persuade me to exercise my discretion to grant bail.

For reasons stated above no case is made out and the application for bail is rejected.

N.H.Q./M-511/L Bail refused