MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus THE STATE

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him at Police Station, Zafarwal, District Sialkot under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for having abducted, and committed Zina with Mst. Najma Bibi, daughter of Nishan Ali complainant.

2. According to the F.I.R. Mst. Najma Bibi used to take Dars‑e- Quran from the. petitioner, during which he developed illicit relations with her. He is alleged to have enticed away the girl on 23‑7‑1985.

According to the F.I.R. he was alleged to have seen taking away Mst. Najma Bibi, by Ibrahim Lumberdar and Manzur Ahmad, co‑villagers.

3. Mst. Najma Bibi, on recovery, while making statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not only made allegations of having been abducted by the petitioner, but also stated that he had been committing Zina with her, as a result of which she became pregnant. The doctor who had medically examined her, reported that she has pregnancy of 5 months Medical examination was performed on 13‑8‑1985.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was involved falsely in this case; that Manzur Ahmad, who is stated to have seen the petitioner taking away the abductee, in a sworn affidavit placed on the file, has stated that a false case has been set up against the petitioner; that there is no eye‑witness account of the commission of Zina and that the statement of Najma Bibi under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is merely a statement of a co‑accused, and as such cannot be given full weight of statement of a witness.

5. Even if the evidence of Manzur Ahmad is excluded, there is enough evidence in support of allegation of the abductee, having been abducted by the petitioner. Although, there is no eye‑witness account of the commission of Zina with Mst. Najma Bibi (who is stated to be a girl of 15 years only) but she has levelled allegation of commission of Zina by the petitioner, in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and her statement finds support from the medical evidence. The evidentiary value of her statement will be seen at the trial stage. For the present, reasonable grounds do not appear of the petitioner not having committed the offence. There is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.

S.A. Petition dismissed.