ATA MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

This is a petition for grant of bail on behalf of Mst. Kaniz Fatima who stands arrested in case F.I.R. No.160, dated 12-7-1993, under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Khushab, since 18-7-1993 on the allegation that she alongwith her grandson Sarfraz, one Ghulam Muhammad, Nazar Baloch and others enticed away Mst. Nikko Rani daughter of complainant from bus-stand Khushab sometime in December, 1992 and January, 1993, when she was returning after visiting house of her grandfather in Naushera. Waris Masih father of the abductee kept searching for her for 7/8 months and at last he lodged instant F.I.R. against petitioner, one Mst. Shahnaz Bibi and Ghulam Rasool. In his supplementary statement the complainant named Nazar and Sarfraz. On 18-7-1993 in pursuance of a secret information the Investigating Officer conducted raid and recovered Mst. Nikko Rani abductee while she was present in the company of Ghulam Muhammad, Sarfraz and the petitioner near the house of Nazar. She was produced before the Magistrate on the following day and got her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. recorded. In that she levelled allegation against petitioner that she had been selling her out to different persons for Zina.

2. Petitioner's bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also perused the record.

3. The petitioner is a woman: She is said to be over 55 years age, Sarfraz, her co-accused, is son of her daughter. It is argued that as a matter of fact Mst. Nikko Rani had an affair with Sarfraz and eloped with him. Further, argued that in order to pressurise family of Sarfraz to return the abductee the instant case was registered against Mst. Kaniz Fatima grandmother of Sarfraz and also her relatives. Further, submitted that there is delay of about 8 months in lodging the F.I.R. without reasonable explanation. The abductee has since been recovered. It is further contended that although challan has been submitted yet no witness has so far been examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, opposed the petition.

4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances narrated above coupled with the fact that petitioner is 'a woman, I find that petitioner's case is covered by subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently I allow this petition and direct that petitioner be released subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

N.H.Q./K-100/L Bail allowed.