REHMAT ALI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This petition by Rehmat Ali, who is accused of offences against sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. Mst. Khalida Parveen co‑accused of the petitioner was a Christian by faith. She was married to Bahadur Masih, also a Christian, somewhere before 1981. At that time, her name was Naziran Bibi. Somewhere before 27‑11‑1981, Mst. Khalida Parveen, it is stated, embraced Islam and married the petitioner on 27‑11‑1981, on the faith of a Fatwa that her conversion to Islam had put an end to her marriage with Bahadur Masih. The latter lodged an F.I.R. on 30‑7‑1983 against the petitioner and Mst. Khalida Parveen and the petitioner was arrested, but later released on bail. After his release on bail, he went to Saudi Arabia and returned to Pakistan in January, 1987 and was arrested again in February, 1988. In the meantime, Mst. Khalida Parveen was tried and convicted under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by the trial Court's judgment dated 22‑5‑1988. Her appeal against her conviction was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court. She then filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court contending that the effect produced by her embracing Islam was to put an end to her marriage with Bahadur Masih and, therefore, by marrying the petitioner, she had committed no offence. She was granted leave to appeal and was released on bail by the Supreme Court's order dated 7‑3‑1987.

3. It is maintained that the guilt or innocence of the petitioner will turn on whether Mst. Khalida Parveen's conversion to Islam had put an end to her marriage with Bahadur Masih; for, it is argued, if it had, then no offence against the Hudood Ordinance was committed. The question, it is further argued, will be finally determined by the, Supreme Court. Learned counsel also refers to Sardar Masih v. Haider Masih P L D 1988 FSC 78 where, it appears to have been held that if, a woman had embraced Islam and her non‑Muslim husband knew of her having done so but had taken no action in the matter, and the woman had believed it in good faith that her marriage with her non‑Muslim husband had come to an end, then no offence was committed by her marrying another man. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application only on the ground that the petitioner had been absconding. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, I do not think that his abscondence should stand in the way of bail. I, therefore, allow him to be released on bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge concerned.

S.A./R‑86/L Bail granted.