AHMAD HASAN Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

ORDER,

A case F.I.R. No.150/95, dated 6-9-1995 was registered with Police Station Sahooka, District Vehari under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979, for an occurrence which took place o 20/21 days prior to the registration of the case against Munir Ahmed, Parveen Bibi, Mst. Siddiqan and Mst. Zubaida, real brother and sisters inter se for committing the abduction of Mst. Siddiqan, wife of Muhammad Amin, complainant herein.

2. After the investigation of the case Munir and Mst. Siddiqan was found involved in the crime. Mst. Siddiqan, thereafter, was enlarged on bail vide order, dated 14-9-1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala whereas the bail petition of the petitioner was declined vide order, dated 13-2-1996 passed by the same learned trial Court.

3. The facts, in brief, of the prosecution case are that the complainant had contracted marriage with Mst. Siddiqan, the alleged abductee and out of this wedlock two children were born. One day the complainant was away from his house where Mst. Siddiqan his alleged wife was abducted by the aforesaid accused persons and she was seen at "Adds Jhurru" by the witnesses, who informed the complainant about the abduction of Mst. Siddiqan.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and have also perused the record with their assistance.

5. Admittedly, Munir, Mst. Siddiqan and Mst. Zubaida, after thorough investigation, were found to be innocent and they have not been challaned in the aforesaid indictment. The case was got registered with the delay of 20/21 days. This fact alone casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution case and makes the case of the petitioner of further inquiry, which clearly falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. Even otherwise, the petitioner was arrested on 18-11-1995 and the challan was statedly submitted on 25-11-1995. Since then no substantive progress has so far teen made in the trial. The petitioner cannot be kept in the judicial lock-up for an indefinite period and the bail cannot be withheld as punishment because the law does not continence it.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, I feel pursuaded to admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Burewala.

N.H.Q./M-186/L Bail allowed.