A Pakistani court has freed 12 men accused of rape, giving a new legal twist to one of the country's most prominent cases involving violence against women.

The men, accused of raping Mukhtaran Mai, were freed Friday by a review board comprising three judges of the Lahore High Court.

"I am greatly disappointed. I will ask the government not to free them," a shaken Mukhtaran Mai was Saturday quoted in media reports as saying at Meerwala, a village near Multan town.

The accused had been jailed since March on an order that will expire next week. The judges denied the Punjab government's request for a three-month extension.

Thirteen men were arrested in 2002 after Mukhtaran Mai, then 33, came forward to relate her ordeal.

She had said she was raped on the orders of a village council, which called it a punishment for her brother's alleged illicit affair with a woman from another family. Mukhtaran Mai has denied the allegations against her brother.

In August 2002, six suspects were sentenced to death and the other seven acquitted.

In March 2005, a court overturned the convictions of five men and reduced the death sentence of the sixth to life, sparking an outcry by human rights groups at home and abroad.

Police re-arrested 12 of the accused under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Act on orders of the Punjab home secretary after the victim complained she was being harassed.

While they have now been released on bonds of Rs.50,000 each, the 13th man, who has been sentenced to life, will not be covered by Friday's order.

When they were produced Friday, the board asked Punjab's additional home secretary to spell out the grounds on which they had been arrested.

The official submitted that Mukhtaran Mai had alleged that they had been making threats against her after their acquittal by the Multan bench of the Lahore High Court.

The home department had, therefore, ordered their detention for three months. Their release would create more problems and their detention should be extended, the official said.

The board observed that clinching evidence was required to extend their detention and that allegations of issuing threats was not ground enough to keep them in jail.