MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This is an application for grant of pre‑arrest bail to Muhammad Anwar petitioner in case under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at P.S. Kanganpur, District Kasur vide F.I.R. No. 52, dated 24‑2‑1987.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner developed illicit relations with Mst. Surayya Bibi and with the help of Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Habban abducted her in order to subject her to illicit intercourse and thereafter had been committing zina with her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has maliciously been involved in the case at the instance of Hall Zafar, Chairman, Union Council Dhuttey against whom he is contemplating to contest the forthcoming elections; that Mst. Surayya had filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage against her husband Muhammad Salim before Judge Family Court, Kasur on 21‑12‑1986 and she was staying with her relatives in Kasur at that time that in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 3‑5‑1987, she stated that she was neither abducted nor was subjected to zina by anyone; that the co‑accused have already been granted bail by another learned Judge of this Court and that Talib Hussain has sworn affidavit exonerating the petitioner of the crime. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. The Investigating Officer states that Mst. Surayya has not been recovered so far.

4. Since this application has been entrusted to me under Special Orders of my Lord, the Chief Justice, therefore, I have entertained it although the co‑accused were allowed bail by another learned Judge of this Court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the police has collected sufficient evidence which shows that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had been committing zina with Mst. Surayya Bibi. Ahmad Din P.W. in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. has stated that the petitioner and Mst. Surraya Bibi had been living in a house for 15 days situate in his Basti posing themselves as husband and wife; that Mst. Surayya Bibi has not been recovered so far and that I also do not see any mala fides on the part of the police to involve the petitioner in the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case for grant of pre‑arrest bail.

For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed.

M.Y.H./M‑525/L Pre‑arrest bail refused.