FALAK SHER Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant Falak Sher alongwith other co-accused is facing trial for offence under sections 11 and 16 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Mst. Bibi Qureshi filed F.I.R. No. 2-1-1988 in which she stated that -her daughter Mst. Hajra, who is wife of Mohammad Iqbal went out to buy milk alongwith her two small kids but did not return. Subsequently she received a letter from her daughter after which she filed an F.I.R. after a delay of 71 months from the date of disappearance in which she lodged suspicion on Falak Sher driver of Mini Bus. On 17-1-1988 Mst. Hajra was recovered from the house of Mohammad Hayat in Mankerra, District Bukhar in Punjab. Her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded and subsequently her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was also recorded. According to her 164, Cr.P.C. statement she had been abducted by Falak Sher and sent to Punjab with his brother Zulfiqar and Zulfiqar committed Zina with her and sold her to Muhammad Hayat for Rs.22,000 Mohammad Hayat forcibly married her.

2. Bail plea is urged on behalf of applicant Falak Sher on the ground that there is no allegation of rape against him by Mst. Hajra in her 164, Cr.P.C. statement. On the contrary in that statement she has stated that she was beaten up by her husband, left house voluntarily and met Falak Sher, who told her that he would marry her after her divorce. It is further stated in that statement that Falak Sher sent her with his brother Zulfiqar to Punjab and told him that he would come to Punjab after 3/4 days and marry her. It is correct that in 164, Cr.P.C. statement she has not alleged rape against accused Falak Sher but in her 161, Cr.P.C. statement she has done that. Prosecution case against this applicant is that he has abducted a married woman and in such circumstances section 11 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance would be attracted according to which punishment is life imprisonment. There is enough material collected by the prosecution on the basis of which it can be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant has committed offence alleged against him as such is not entitled to bail. His bail application is dismissed.

3. S.A./F-55/K Bail refused.