NAZEER AHMAD Versus STATE

The petitioners who are involved in a case under section 365/148/149, P.P.C. read with section 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No.498/93, dated 29-10-1993, registered at Police Station Saddar. District Kasur, seek to be admitted to bail.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners is that they while armed with rifles alongwith their co-accused abducted Mst. Samina Bibi and also injured Barkat Ali complainant

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner and the parties have entered into a compromise, hence no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Petitioners behind the bars. He also contended that there is conflict between (lit: medical evidence as well as the ocular version. According to F.I.R. Nazir Alimad Petitioner No.l caused injury to Barkat Ali injured P.W. with Butt of hi, rifle whereas according to the statement of Mst. Samina Bibi recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. it was Rafiq who caused injury to Barkat Ali with butt of his rifle, hence in view of this glaring contradiction, no reliance can be placed upon the version given in the F.I.R. He further contended that the parties are related inter se and they have patched up their differences, so the petitioners may be released on bail.

4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, has half-heartedly opposed this bail application in view of the conduct of the parties as they have resolved their difference through compromise.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Admittedly, there is no allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr levelled against the petitioners by Mst. Samina Bibi who made her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. after her recovery on 21-11-1993. No doubt, there are allegations against the petitioners that they dragged her and facilitated her abduction but in view of the alleged compromise entered into between the parties, the case against the petitioners seems to be one of further inquiry as it would be determined after the recording of detailed evidence whether actually the petitioners facilitated the crime or not, hence the petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Kasur.

N.H.Q./N-247/L Bail allowed.