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. 671‑B of 1981/BWP, decided on 29th July, 1981.
‑ S. 497 and Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 16‑Bail‑Delay‑Investigation complete but challan not submitted in Court without any legal or factual justification‑Delay in submission of challan, held, on account of mala fides on part of Police‑Police or complainant indulging in de laying tactics or frustrates powers of Court to proceed with matter Duty of Court to come to rescue accused and save him‑from prolonged unwarranted delay.‑[Delay].
G. N., Gohar for Petitioner.
M. M. A. Pirzada for the State.
Date of hearing: ‑ 29th July, 1981.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Fida Hussain in a case under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station, Ahmadpur East vide F. I. R. No. 38 dated 12th February, 1981.
The allegation against the petitioner are that he enticed away Mst. Maryam with intent that she may have sexual intercourse with anyone and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 16 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)‑Ordinance, 1979.
2. Learned counsel submits that the alleged offence is not punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more and in such like cases grant of bail is a rule.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's earlier application for bail has been rejected by this Court on 14th April, 1981 and as no fresh ground is available to him, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that although more than three months have passed since the rejection of the application of the petitioner by this Court yet the challan has not been submitted. I have gone through the order passed by my learned brother Manzoor Hussain Sial, J., wherein it is stated that "I do not find any reason for release of the petitioner on bail at this stage. The petitioner however, may repeat application after some evidence is recorded by the learned trial Court and on the basis thereof he makes out a case for bail".
I have considered this order very carefully. I am of the opinion that this order does not rule out a new ground for bail arisen in the course of events. In this case, I find that the investigation was almost complete on 25th March, 1981 but after the rejection of the bail petition of the petitioner by this Court, the challan was not submitted in Court without any legal or factual justification. Therefore, I am of the view that this delay is on account of mala fides on the part of the police. If the police or the complainant indulges in delayin2i tactics or frustrates the powers of the Court to proceed with the matter, it would be the duty of the Court to come to the rescue of an accused person and save him from the prolonged unwarranted detention. In view of the new ground of delay which has arisen after the rejection of the bail application of the petitioner, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Bahawalpur.
Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer