MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE

ORDER

A case under section 10/11/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioner on the ground that he along with others, abducted Salina Bibi and committed Zina with her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the said lady was validly married vide Nikah Deed dated 9‑11‑1995 and as such they were residing as husband and wife. In this context it was further submitted that Mst. Salina Bibi had filed a Writ Petition No.16365/95, in which she contended that she was earlier married to one Muhammad Ismail and out of that wedlock two children were born to her. The aforesaid Ismail divorced her on 10‑3‑1995 vide divorce deed, whereupon she remarried on 19‑11‑1995 with the present petitioner. That writ petition is yet pending adjudication. It is, therefore, submitted that prima facie no offence of Zina is made out, as such being a case of further inquiry, the petitioner is entitled to post‑arrest bail.

2. The learned State Counsel has pointed out that Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1276/H of 1995 was instituted by one Muhammad . Yousaf, brother of the petitioner against S.H.O., Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura with the plea that Mst. Salma Bibi was illegally detained by the latter. In .pursuance of the proceeding in the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous detenue, Mst. Salma Bibi appeared in this Court on 6‑2‑1996 in company of her father and made statement that she was forcibly abducted by the petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf with the .help of others. She also alleged that her thumb‑impression on the plain paper was obtained after she was taken away. She denied to have affixed her thumb impression on any Nikah Deed. She finally deposed that since she was residing with her father, therefore, she would like to continue residing with him. In the light of the statement made by Mst. Salma Bibi, alleged abductee, a detailed order was recorded in the above‑referred Criminal Miscellaneous, in which she was allowed to reside with her father as prayed by her.

3. When confronted with the above situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are two different versions made by Mst. Salma Bibi. In one statement she has claimed to be married with the petitioner and in her other statement she denied to be married with the petitioner. On these premises it was alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it had become a case of further inquiry and as such the petitioner should be admitted to bail.

4. I have considered the above contentions and find that genuineness or otherwise of Nikah Nama can only be gone into at the time of trial of the case. Veracity of the testimony of Mst. Salina Bibi can only be tested after she appears or is produced in the trial Court as a witness. At present she has clearly implicated the petitioner to have prepared a forged Nikah Deed and has denied her marriage with him. The challan has already been sent to the Court. The petitioner has, therefore, no case of bail at this stage. The petition is according dismissed with the direction that the learned trial Court shall dispose of the case within three months, failing which the petitioner may repeat bail petition in the appropriate forum.

N.H.Q./M‑50/L Bail refused.