TAJ Versus STATE

The petitioner who is involved in a case under sections 10/11 and 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No.163/93, dated 9-11-1993, registered at Police Station Ahmadabad, District Okara, seeks to be admitted to bail.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he abducted wife and daughter of the complainant with the intention to commit Zina with his wife.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner. The only allegation is that he accommodated Mst. Sughran and principal accused Zaman in his house, hence he facilitated the commission of crime. He further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 4-12-1993 without any progress in the trial. In the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the presence of this evidence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence whether the petitioner facilitated the crime or not, when apparently the case is one of elopement and not of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr.

4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has opposed this bail application on the ground that neither the principal accused nor Mst. Sughran Bibi has yet been arrested.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,

6. Admittedly, there is no allegation of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr against the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that Zaman and Mst. Sughran Bibi stayed at the house of the petitioner for sometime, hence the police has made him accused. From the perusal of the F.I.R., it seems to be a case of elopement because prior to this, Mst. Sughran Bibi eloped with Zaman principal accused in this case on 30-5-1991 and thereafter both of them were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara vide order, dated 14-10-1993. In the presence of the. material referred to above, the cafe against the petitioner is one of further inquiry, so the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Depalpur.

N.H.Q./T-71/L

Bail allowed.