GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
ORDER
The petitioners are involved in a case under section 10/11 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with sections 407, 468 and 471, P.P.C. They have petitioned for being admitted to bail.
2. According to the F.I.R. Khan Muhammad, the complainant had eight daughters. His two daughters, namely, Mst. Jannat and Kist. Zarina had been married to Haq Nawaz and Ghulam Hussain petitioner No.1. The petitioners had demanded the hand of Mst. Maryam, a virgin daughter of the complainant, but it was not acceded to by the complainant. The complainant married Mst. Maryam to Abdul Qayyum son of Muhammad Ramzan and Rukhsati had not taken place. Fifteen/ sixteen days before the lodging of the F.I.R. Mst. Maryam was picking wood for baking bread when Muhammad Nawaz son of Karim Bakhsh and Muhammad Nawaz son of Ghulam Muhammad came there while armed with Sotas and they are stated to have abducted Mst. Maryam. She was taken to the house of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Mst. Ghulam Fatima promised to restore Mst. Maryam within two days but she did not do so. A case under section 10/11 of the Zina Ordinance was registered against Muhammad Nawaz son of Karim Bakhsh and Muhammad Nawaz son of Ghulam Muhammad.
3. After recovery, Mst. Maryam made a statement that she did not like Abdul Qayyum and she married Muhammad Nawaz son o Karim Bakhsh of her own free will. Nikahnama, dated 19‑5‑1984 was produced, which evinced that Mst. Maryam had married Muhammad Nawaz although her Nikah with Abdul Qayyum was performed on 28‑7‑1984. The learned Sessions Judge, Multan by means of his order, dated 8‑11‑1984, found that Nikahnama, dated 19‑5‑1984 had bee forged and an affidavit also appeared to be spurious. A case was registered against Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Hussain the petitioners as they had witnessed the questioned Nikahnama. They appear to have committed an offence under sections 466, 468 and 471, P.P.C. The maximum sentence for an offence under section 46 and 468, P.P.C. is seven years, which is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The said forgery also needs probe. I, therefore, admit the petitioners to bail in the sum o Rs.25,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . /Duty Magistrate, Multan till the disposal of the case.
S.A./G‑118/L Bail granted.