MUMTAZ ALIAS MUTTI ALIAS NAWAB Versus STATE

The petitioners who are involved in a case under section 10/11 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 arising out of F.I.R. No.509/93, dated 26-11-1993, registered at Police Station "B" Division, Kasur, seek to be admitted to bail.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners is that they alongwith their co-accused abducted Mst. Zarina Bibi with the intention to commit Zina with her.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that Muhammad Afzal and Mst. Zarina Bibi married each other on 12-11-1993, hence they have not committed any offence under Hudood Ordinance. He has referred to unexplained delay of six days which makes the prosecution case further doubtful and also has relied upon the statement of Mst. Zarina Bibi made before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. thus the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail as their case falls within the ambit of further inquiry.

4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, has opposed this bail application on the grounds that the petitioners have not produced the alleged Nikahnama before the Investigating Officer and the girl has made statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate wherein she has categorically implicated the petitioners as accused, so the case against them falls within the prohibitory clause and they are not entitled to bail.

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

5. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot satisfy me with respect to the genuineness of Nikahnama on which she places reliance, as it was neither produced before the Investigating Officer nor the Nikah Khawan was examined by the police. In view of the statement of the girl A recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. prima facie, there exist reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners are involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. There is no merit in this bail application which is dismissed accordingly.

N.H.Q./M-1690/L Bail refused.