Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 357/B of 1974, decided on 6th December 1974.
‑‑‑ Ss. 497(2) & 498‑Bail‑Abductee making two contradictory state ments and making case sufficiently doubtful‑Case, held, fell within subsection (2) of S. 497 and accused entitled to interim bail‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 363 & 368.‑[Bail].
Maqbool Ilahi Malik for Petitioner.
M. A. Zafar for the State.
This is an application by Mohammad Sardar, Mst. Shamim Begum and Inayat Hussain for grant of trail under sections 497 and 498, Cr. P. C. The petition was, however, admitted only with regard to Muhammad Sardar and Inayat Hussain petitioners, because no challan had been filed by the police against Mst. Shamim Begum petitioner and accordingly her name was deleted.
2. The allegations against the petitioners are that they abducted Mst. Shamim Begum and an F. I. R. under section 363, P. P. C. (which is an offence punishable with 7 years' R. I.), was lodged against the petitioners. Subsequently, when the girl was recovered, she made a statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. on 14‑3‑1973 to the effect that when she returned from the house of her aunt and was present at Kasur Railway Station, Muhammad Sardar and Inayat Hussain accused‑petitioner who was present there induced her to go with them, on the pretext that they would give her some Jewellery; that they then took her to Kot Radha Kishan where they committed rape with her and Muhammad Sardar petitioner and that they also got her thumb‑impressions marked on a Nikahnama, under duress.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other band, showed me a statement made by Mst. Shamim Begum, the abductee, in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate. Chunian on 24‑2‑1973. This statement bad been mi de in the course of her examination in connection with a complaint under section 107, Cr. P. C. filed by her against her own relatives wherein she stated that since they were trying to marry her to some one else, she herself, ran away and joined her fiancee, Muhammad Sardar petitioner No. 1. She stated further that she apprehended danger at the hands of her relatives and wanted police protection. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this was a case of elopement and not of abduction.
4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I think that the case is rendered sufficiently doubtful by the two contradictory state merits made by Mst. Shamim Begum, so as to bring it (the case) under sec tion 497 (2), Cr. P. C. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the interim bail, already granted to them, is hereby confirmed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer