NASEEM TAHIRA Versus State

ORDER

Mst Naseem Tahira , a woman of about 55/60 years of age, retired teacher, has applied for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.307 of 2003 registered with Police Station Karore Pakka , District Lodhran on 12-11-2003 upon the written application of Allayar son of Ilahi Bakhsh under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood ) Ordinance No.VII of 1979, after having failed to get concession of bail from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on 2-9-2004.

2. According to the story narrated in the aforesaid F.I.R., the informant, Allahyar , has stated that he was a retired Headmaster and had married with Mst . Naseem Tahira about 25/26 years ago. From this marriage tie, two sons and one daughter had born from the above-mentioned lady. Zafar Iqbal son of Muhammad Ramzan , who was from his fold and had used to drive a wagon, was having visiting terms and due to frequent visits, he had allegedly developed illicit relations with Mst . Naseem Tahira . So, he was prohibited from entering into the house of the informant. On 15th October, 2003 , the informant had gone to some other place and when he returned at about noon , Mst . Naseem Tahira was not found in the house. Search was made. Falak Sher son of Allah Ditta and Fayyaz Ahmad son of Khuda Bakhsh had met him during this search operation and had told the informant of having seen Mst . Naseem Tahira and Zafar Iqbal in a vehicle. The informant had proceeded to the house of Zafar Iqbal , who allegedly admitted the abduction of Mst . Naseem Tahira and promised for her return after the passing of 3/4 days. Taking away of some golden ornaments was also alleged in the aforesaid F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the F.I.R. has been lodged with an unexplained day of 27 days and this F.I.R. was the result of mala fides, as the petitioner had already filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 6-11-2003 and had obtained a decree on 3-3-2003 . The other co-accused Zafar Iqbal had already been granted pre -arrest bail by Honourable Mr. Justice Naseem Sabir (as his Lordship then was). As the case of the petitioner was akin to the case of her aforesaid co-accused, so, she was also entitled to be dealt with the same treatment. It has also been stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner, who was a retired teacher, has been roped into the case due to the strained relations between the husband and the wife.

4. Opposing the bail petition, the informant s learned counsel has stated that no mala fides on the prosecution has been alleged and the pre-arrest bail, being an extraordinary relief, should not be granted to the petitioner, as it would strangulate the case of the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, there are no grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is a run away woman, who should not be granted bail. Stressing upon his version, it has been stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner had developed illicit relations with Zafar Iqbal , the accomplice of the offence of Zina , so, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned State Counsel has also opposed the grant of bail by supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the informant.

6. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examining the material available on the file as well as the police record, it is evident that the F.I.R. was lodged on 12-11-2003, while the occurrence has been stated to have taken place on 15-10-2003 and this delay of 27 long days has not been explained with any cogent reasons. Prima facie, it seems to be a case of pressurizing the woman to return to the house of the informant, who, due to strained relations, had obtained dissolution decree against the informant. The filing of the suit for dissolution of marriage on 6-11-2003 , six days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. on 12-11-2003 , has supported this view, which I have taken. It seems that the criminal proceedings have been initiated, so as to compel the woman to resuscitate the marital contract, which has been tarnished due to the strained and bad relations of the parties. The petitioner, being a woman, is also entitled to the grant of bail under section 497, Cr.P.C . especially when it has been admitted that she is a retired teacher having the age of more than 55 years. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the informant that one of the children of the parties is studying in M.B.,B.S. Class. The rule of consistency also requires that the petitioner should be dealt with the same treatment as has been granted to the alleged co-accused Zafar Iqbal by my learned brother Naseem Sabir , J., (as he then was). There is also a great difference of age between the alleged co-accused Zafar Iqbal and the petitioner, who are stated to be of twenty and sixty years of age respectively.

7. In view what has been stated above, I accept his application and confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 15-9-2004 .

8. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the observations made above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either side at the trial.

H.B.T./N-132/L Bail confirmed.