JAFFAR Versus STATE

ORDER

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him for an offence under section 10/11, Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance (VII of 1979) at Police Station Cantt., Okara.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant and the State at some length. The material on the record shows that it was the petitioner who had deceitfully taken away Mst. Rabia Bibi aged 15/16 yearsi and Mst. Noor Bibi aged 14/15 years on the false pretext that their brother Aslam had met with an accident and was admitted in the Hospital at Okara. He took them to the house of Ata Muhammad accused and confined them in two separate rooms where Ata Muhammad committed Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Rabia Bibi and Mulazam Hussain accused, with Mst. Noor Bibi. The petitioner played an important role in the whole affairs and prima facie appeared to be guilty of offence under section 10(3) read with section 19(2) of the Ordinance. The petitioner had actively assisted the co-accused to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with the abductees and by virtue of the provisions of section 19(2) of the Ordinance is liable to punishment of Taazir under section 10(3) which extends to imprisonment for 25 years with whipping numbering 30 stripes. The said offence clearly falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. The argument of the petitioner's learned counsel that one eye-witness namely Zahoor son of Imam has submitted an affidavit stating therein that he did not know about the occurrence and that it makes the case one of further inquiry, is devoid of force. After being recovered, the two abductees had made their statements before the Magistrate in which they fully implicated the present petitioner. At this stage, the affidavit of the said witness cannot be preferred over the statements of the abductees who had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner.

3.For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed.

N.H.Q./J-68/L Bail refused.