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. 638‑B of 1981, decided on 29th July, 1911.
‑‑‑ S. 497 and Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. I1‑Bail‑Rape‑Evidence about commission of rape not forthcoming ‑-- Petitioners interrogated by Police but recovery of alleged abductee not effected‑Petitioner in jail since long and. no challan submitted as yet --‑ Held, accused can demand speedy trial or immediate submission of challan as a matter of right‑Such right denied, accused justified in asking for bail‑Bail granted in circumstances of case.--‑[Delay].
‑‑ S. 497 and Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 11‑Bail‑Held, bail cannot be withheld because of offence being heinous and cannot be denied as punishment.
Sh. Hakim All for Petitioner.
Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for the State.
Date of hearing : 29th July, 1981.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Bagh Din in a case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Chishtian on 3rd March, 1981.
The allegations against the petitioner are that he with the help of his wife, 3 months prior to the registration of the case bad abducted Mst. Rasoolan with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry with any person or she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 11th March, 1981, interrogated, remained with the Police for some days and then sent to judicial lock‑up and is no more required for investigation.
3. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the alleged abductee has net been recovered yet and that, the case being of heinous nature, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is no evidence about the commission of rape by the petitioner upon Mst. Rasoolan. Although he was interroga ted by the Police yet the recovery of alleged abductee could not be effected.
Be that as it may, the fact remains there that the petitioner is in jail since 11th March, 1981 and no challan has been submitted as yet. To me the accused person can demand speedy trial or immediate submission of the challan as a matter of right, and if this right is denied to him without any fault on his part, then be is justified in asking for bail. I am of the view that bail cannot be withheld because the offence is heinous one and it also cannot be denied as a punishment. Therefore, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in jail.
For the foregoing reasons, 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./Duty Magistrate, Bahawaluagar.
Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer