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. 463-B of 1981, decided on 2nd March, 1981.
-----S. 498 read with Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) S. 11-Bail-Statement of alleged abductee fully implicating petitioner on charge of abduction and committing zina-bil-jabr and medico-legal report showing woman having been subjected to sexual act a number of times-Petitioner being involved in an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, bail declined.
Yaqoob Khan v. The State 1979 P Cr. L J 1069 ref.
Syed Waheed-ur-Rehman Gilani for Petitioner.
Kh. Muhammad Asghar for the State.
Petitioner, Abbas, is implicated in a case under section 11 of Ordinance VI1 of 1979. The F. I. R. in the case was lodged on 23rdNovember, 1980 by Sardar, alleging that his daughter Mst. Safia aged 14/15 years had been abducted by the petitioner. Later, the girl was rescued while travelling in a bus with the petitioner and she made her statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. in which she not only supported the allegation of abduction but also that zina-bil-jahr had been committed on her more than once by the petitioner. The medico-legal report also shows that she had been subjected to sexual act. In these circumstances, the petitioner's application for bail moved before the Court of Session was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, on 24thJanuary, 1981.
2. On merits I find little justification to allow the application. The statement of the girl under section 164, Cr. P. C. has been read over in Court and she has fully implicated the petitioner learned counsel urges that on the basis of the medico-legal report of 24th November, 1980 she was 17/18 years of age and not 14/15 as given in the F. I. R. It .appears that she was radiologically examined on 28th November, 1980 and her age was estimated to be between "15 years and 16 years". The minor difference in the age of the girl found in these documents does not, however, make out any case ill favour of grant of the bail.
3. Learned counsel has raised a legal ground that the present detention of the petitioner is not according to law. He states that there is no order for the custody made by the Court of Session, that the challan has not yet been submitted and that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the authority of Yaqoob Khan v. The State (1979 P Cr. L J 1069). Learned counsel for the State submits that the challan has been sent and is with the P. D. S. P. presently, lie should, however, ascertain the fact as to how the present custody of the petitioner has been regulated from time to time. The matter is adjourned to 4th March, 1981,
4. Learned counsel for the State has furnished an order of the Court of Session, Gujranwala, passed on 8th March, 1581 whereby on receipt of the case, the Court of Session directed it to be registered and fixed 14th April, 1981 for appearance of the accused and for making proper orders. It also directed that the case would be fixed according to its turn. The objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the custody of the petitioner had not been competently ordered, is now removed by this order of the Court of Session.
5. As already pointed out in the earlier order dated 2nd March, 1981 the petitioner is involved in a case under section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979, for having abducted Mst. Sofia and having committed Zina-bil-Jabr on her. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. This is, therefore, not a fit case for grant of bail.
Appeal dismissed,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer