MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Muhammad Rafiq petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and two others under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
The case was registered on the report of Siraj Din, husband of Mst. Rehman co‑accused. The F.I.R. version is that Mst. Taji, mother of the petitioner and aforesaid Mst. Rehman, is a woman of loose character. She left her house thirty years prior to the occurrence and six months before the occurrence started visiting the house of the complainant. On the night between 7th and 8th September, 1984 she alongwith the present petitioners came to the house of the complainant. The complainant who was ailing, slept inside the room. At about mid‑night he heard some whispering and came out to find that the petitioner and his wife were committing Zina. He raised alarm attracting his brother Chiragh Din and Hayat. They tried to apprehend the petitioner but he threatened them with a knife and fled away on his scooter.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. the prosecution version is highly improbable. Hayat P.W. has sworn an affidavit that he had not seen the occurrence and this case is the outcome of long standing enmity between the complainant and Mst. Taji aforementioned.
The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the complainant had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate his own wife and brother‑in‑law in a heinous crime like the present one.
3. I have gone through the relevant material and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. According to the F.I.R., Mat. Rehman is the mother of eight children and all were living with the complainant in the house of occurrence. The question whether the petitioner and Mst. Rehman who are brother and sister inter se, would commit Zina in the house of the complainant where he and his eight children were also sleeping, would require a very serious consideration at the trial. The alleged occurrence took place on the night between 7th and 8th September, 1984 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 12th September, 1884 at 9‑30 a.m. The complainant did not offer any explanation for this delay and prima facie there is' substance in the contention that if such a heinous crime had been A committed within the view of the complainant he would have reported the matter to the police at once. The only, unconnected witness, namely, Muhammad Hayat, is not supporting the prosecution version. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that the case of the petitioner needs further I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Kasur.
M. A. K. Bail allowed.