SAJJAD AHMAD alias KAURA vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Sajjad Ahmad alias Kaura and Muhammad Saleem, the petitioners through two separate petitions bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,100-B of 2003 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,489-B of 2003 respectively have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,45 dated 6-3-2002 under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Bait Mir Hazar, District Muzaffargarh.

2. As these petitions have arisen out of one and the same case, hence are being disposed of by this single order.

3. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on the night between 26/27-2-2002 Sajjad Ahmad alias Kaura, Karim Bakhsh, Mst. Pathani and Muhammad Saleem have abducted Mst. Rukhsana Parveen, the daughter of the complainant, for Zina.

4. It has been contended on behalf of Sajjad Ahmad alias Kaura that he has falsely been roped in; that Mst. Rukhsana Parveen had entered into valid Nikah with him and thereafter, she has been living with him as his wife and his Nikah with her was solemnized in the presence of the witnesses on 5-3-2002 and she has testified to this effect in her private complaint against Muhammad Ibrahim and others under sections 506/452/365, P.P.C. Filed in the Court of learned Ilaqa Magistrate and subsequently she came to her parents and under their influence has brought suit for jactitation of marriage against him; that he on the other hand has filed suit for conjugal rights against her and both these suits are pending adjudication before the competent Family Court; that the proceedings in the instant case have been stayed by the learned trial Court and it is not certain that when decision of the suits will be made; and that he is behind the bars for the last about 8 months and previous non-convict.

5. On behalf of the petitioner Muhammad Saleem, it has been contended that he has falsely been roped in because of relationship with the main accused Sajjad Ahmad alias Kaura; that he has not joined his co-accused in the alleged abduction of Mst. Rukhsana Parveen and in fact he was present at Lahore at the relevant time and in the investigation his name has been placed in Column No,2 of challan report; and that due to this fact the case against him needs further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars for the last about four months and a previous non- convict.

6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the .Petitions on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they alongwith their co-accused have abducted Mst. Rukhsana Parveen 13-1/2 years old, the daughter of the complainant and thereafter, Sajjad Ahmad alias Kaura forged Nikahnama between him and her and that is why she had filed suit for jactitation of marriage against him; and that both the petitioners had been subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabr and so they are connected with the alleged offence.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

8. Allegedly both the petitioners alongwith their co-accused had abducted Mst. Rukhsana Parveen, the daughter of the complainant for Zina.

9. Sajjad Ahmad alias Kaura had taken plea of valid marriage between him and her. It is admitted position on record that she has brought suit for jactitation of marriage against him while he has brought suit for conjugal rights against her. These suits are pending adjudication before the competent Family Court.

10. In view of the plea of valid marriage by Sajjad Ahmad Kaura and the pendency of the two suits and the fact that petitioner Muhammad Saleem has been found innocent in the investigation and his name having been placed in Column No,2 of the challan report, the case against them has become one of further inquiry and the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

11. They are stated to be behind the bars and previous non-convicts.

12. In these circumstances, they (petitioners) are entitled to bail. The petitions, therefore, are accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.