KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

The petitioner has applied for bail after arrest in case F.I.Ir: No.166 under section 10/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 7 of 1979 registered with Police Station City Sargodha on the application of Allah Bakhsh - complainant. The notice was issued to the State which is represented by Mr. Muhammad Naeem, Advocate.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that it is clearly a case of element and not abduction. It is added that the alleged abductee was recovered from the house of Tariq accused. It is argued that there is a delay of four days in registering the case and the petitioner has been roped on mere suspecion. The arguments are summed up with the submission that in any case it is a case of further inquiry.

3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel argued that Mst. Kausar Parveen was abducted and she was subjected to rape by the petitioner and his co-accused.

.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is clear from the medico-legal report that there was no mark of violence over any part of her body. The A.S.I. also admitted that the accused and her father are residents of the same locality and she was recovered from the house of Tariq co-accused of the petitioner. These facts when considered together clearly make the case against the petitioner of further inquiry.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this application is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing 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 trial Court.

N.H.Q./K-157/L Bail granted.