SHIRAZ Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB

Zafar Iqbal complainant a public servant who is resident of House No.462, Ward No.6 Yazman District Bahawalpur got recorded F.I.R. No.2, dated 4-1-1995 at Police Station Yazman under Article 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 to which Article 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 has been added. He alleged that on 12-12-1994 he had gone to perform his duty while his wife has gone to the fields for cotton picking. Muhammad Ismail petitioner was related to him and due to that was on visiting terms. On 12-12-1994 he enticed away his daughter Mst. Rizwana Kausar aged 12 years on the pretext that she was being called by her mother in the fields. Suleman and Mukhtar Ahmad P.Ws. saw Muhammad Ismail petitioner alongwith Mst. Rizwana Kausar and during the search they intimated Zafar Iqbal complainant.

2. Mst. Rizwana Kausar was recovered from the custody of Muhammad Ismail at Kamalia. The police recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. and also got her examined from the Magistrate 1st Class under section 164, Cr.P.C. In both of her statements Mst. Rizwana Kausar made the allegation that Muhammad Ismail enticed her away and committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. The Woman Medical Officer examined Mst. Rizwana Kausar. She obtained vaginal swabs and report of the Chemical Examiner is in the positive. Muhammad Ismail was also examined for potency and report of the Medical Officer is in the positive. Muhammad Ismail was arrested on 8-2-1995 whose bail plea has been rejected by the lower Court and he has filed this petition to try his luck to be admitted to bail.

3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is considerable delay in reporting the matter to the police, that the suit for jactitation of marriage was instituted by Mst. Rizwana Kausar and that the trial has not started in spite of the lapse of a period of more than six months. 1n my view the aforesaid assertions are not enough to make him entitled to the grant of bail. It is a matter of common knowledge that in abduction cases where the honour of the family is involved the people in the country do not run to the police and try to first exhaust all their sources towards locating the whereabouts of the abductees. Hence the point of delay has no weight. The institution of the suit for jactitation of marriage is also no ground for the admission of this petitioner to bail especially when it has been stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the complainant that the said suit has been decreed on 22-6-1995 by the Court of competent jurisdiction. About the detention of the petitioner in the judicial lock-up suffice it to express that the continuous period of his detention has not exceeded one year as contemplated under clause (a) to proviso III of subsection (1) of section 49,7, Cr.P.C. In view of the dictum enunciated in Mst. Nasreen v. Fayyaz Khan and another PLD 1991 SC 412 referred to by the learned counsel for the complainant the case of the prosecution against this petitioner-accused cannot be held to be that of further inquiry. He is directly involved in the case being the only and principal accused. He has brought bad name to the family of the complainant and also shattered the confidence of the family being a relative of the complainant. It is a case of moral turpitude and cannot be taken lightly. In the circumstances of this case the petitioner is held liable for the offence falling under prohibitory clause and is not entitled to be admitted to bail.

4 For what has been said above, I dismiss this petition

N.H.Q./M-2514/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused