MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE

ORDER

This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Arshad petitioner in a case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at P.S. City 'B' Division, Rahimyar Khan, vide F.I.R. No.46/88.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner abducted Mst. Mehnaz Fatima on 27‑3‑1988 from the house of her father Muhammad Yousaf, complainant and thereafter committed Zina‑bil‑jabr with her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Nikah of Mst. Mehnaz Fatima was performed with the petitioner on 25‑2‑1988, therefore, the question of her abduction by the petitioner from the house of her father on 27‑3 1988, does not arise. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has seriously opposed this application on the ground that Mst. Mehnaz Fatima in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. has implicated the petitioner in crime punishable under section 11/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner has placed on record Nikahnama which shows that his Nikah was performed with Mst. Mehnaz Fatima on 25‑2‑1988 by Maulvi Abdul Haleem who is now present in the Court and states that he had performed Nikah of Mst. Mehnaz wrath the petitioner on 25‑2‑1988 and that the police had forcibly obtained writing from him to the effect that he had not performed the Nikah of the petitioner with Mst. Mehnaz Fatima. Mst. Mehnaz Fatima is admittedly sui-juris. She had signed Nikahnama in English. Her signatures on Nikahnama tally with her signatures on her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. and that the alleged abduction took place after the date of Nikah of Mst. Mehnaz Fatima with the petitioner.

For what has been said above, I feel that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner has been made out. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan.

SA./M‑1228/L Bail granted