ZAFAR IQBAL Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of Zafar Iqbal, petitioner, in a case F.I.R. No.330, dated 1-8-1994 for the offence under sections 11, 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Sadar Arifwala.

2. According to the F.I.R., Abdul Jabbar and his father Mokha abducted Mst. Shamim Mai daughter of the complainant and Shamim Mai daughter of Lal Din. Subsequently, on the statements of a few witnesses recorded on 6-8-1994, the petitioner was involved in this case. Mst. Shamim alias Sheema also implicated the petitioner in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mst. Shamim Mai alias Sheema is the legally-wedded wife of the petitioner. He further states that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed against Mst. Shamim Mai alias Sheema is also pending in a Family Court. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. He states that Mst. Shamim Mai alias Sheema has levelled the allegation, of Zina against the petitioner in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.

4. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. The statements of the witnesses recorded on 6-8-1994 to the effect that the petitioner abducted Mst. Shamim Mai alias Sheema have got no evidentiary value for the reason that these statements are based on hearsay evidence. The abductee stated in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. that Nabi Bakhsh accused (?) her to the Petitioner, whereas Nabi Bakhsh has been declared innocent in the police investigation. Further the accused Mokha, Mst. Saaira, Mst. Shamim Mai daughter of Mokha and Muhammad Amin have also been found innocent. Had the petitioner been present at the time of abduction of Mst. Shamim Mai alias Sheema, this fact must have been communicated by the witnesses to the Complainant. From this, it is evident that the occurrence did not take place in the manner detailed in the F.I.R.

6. The mere fact that a certain Nikah is performed in a place far away from the one where a woman usually lives does not necessarily mean that the Nikah is a forged one. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has raised an honest plea of Nikah in a bona fide manner. It may be observed that each and every allegation made by a certain abductee in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. should not be viewed a gospel truth.

In view of above, the petitioner is allowed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Arifwala.

N.H.O./Z-147/L. Bail allowed.