FAYYAZ AHMED Versus STATE

ORDER

Heard.

2. Petitioner and Mst. Kasloom Bibi are facing trial of a case under sections 16 and 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 registered at Police Station City Chishtian vide F.I.R No. 196 of 1996, dated 27‑5‑1996.

3. Concession of bail has been claimed on the pleas that the petitioner is innocent, no more required by police, there is delay of about 1/1‑2 months in lodging F.I.R., same is indicative of mala fide of complainant party, co‑accused stands enlarged on bail and the petitioner is behind the bars for the last ten months. With reference to photo‑copy of Nikahnama and statement of Mst. Kalsoom Bibi during proceedings of suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, case, at the best, has been described of two versions. Accordingly, grant of bail has been urged on the strength of Murad v. The State (1989 MLD 643), Shahid Iqbal and another v. The State (1992 PCr.LJ 1928), Muhammad Zahid and another v. The State (1993 PCr.LJ 963) and Tauqir Hyder v. The State (NLR 1985 PCrL.J. 215).

4. It has been resisted and opposed vigorously on the plea that delay, if any, is of little signification and that Mst. Kalsoom Bibi has categorically denied and refuted her Nikah with the petitioner.

5. Documents annexed with the petition reveal that Mst. Kalsoom Bibi had described herself to be legal wedded wife of petitioner during proceedings of a suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights resorted to by petitioner. It is not proper to comment upon genuineness or otherwise of same and Nikahnama, lest it may prejudice the case of either party. In any event, fact remains that the case is patently of "two versions" and in such eventuality, petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of law enunciated in authorities referred to above and galaxy of rulings on the point.

6. Be that as it may, trial has not yet started, inasmuch as, it is not known as to how long, would it take, to commence, what to speak, of conclusion thereof. Admittedly the petitioner is in continuous detention for the last 10 months. As such he cannot be allowed to incarcerate for an indefinite period.

7. Application consequently is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sumo of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

N.H.Q./F‑29/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.