Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2517‑B of 1981, decided on 29^th September, 1981.

‑‑ S. 497‑Alleged abductee making statement under S. 164, Cr. P. C. that she has not been abducted by any one but run away from her house at her own accord to marry petitioner photostat copy of Nikhanama also placed on record‑Case of bail held, made out in circumstances of case‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 11.

Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti and Ch. Shah Muhammad for Petitioner.

Ch. Farzand Ali for the Complainant.

Date of hearing : 29th September, 1981.

This is an application for bail. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others in respect of an occurrence of abduction on the 28th of April, 1981. The report was lodged on 2nd May, 1981 and a case was registered under section 10/11 of the Zina Ordinance as against the petitioner and others. On the record is nikahnama howing that Mst. Umtal Kalsoom, the abductee was married to Manzil Shah co-accused on the 11^th of May, 1981. There is an extract from the register of births indicating that the date of birth of the girl was 12th September, 1963 which means that on the day of occurrence she was more than 17 years old. There is also document placed on the record dated 12th June, 1981 to the effect that in a Panchait one Amir Ahmad Khan, eminent resident of the village was made arbitrator and he gave it in writing after hearing the parties that he had satisfied himself that the present petitioner was innocent and not‑ implicated in the instant case. There is a statement of Mst. Umtal Kalsoom dated 4th May, 1981 made before the Magistrate to the effect that she had not been abducted by any one and that she had run away at her own accord from her house in order to marry Manzil Shah, her fiancee. Learned counsel for the complainant and the police officer who has brought the record have stated before me that two girls were abducted, namely, Mst. Umtal Kalsoom and Mst. Perveen Akhtar. Both of them were recovered by the police and they appeared before a Magistrate at Samundari on 17th May, 1981. Statements of both the girls were recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. and each of them stated that the present petitioner alongwith others had taken them to a place in Hasilpur where all the members of the accused party including the present petitioner had been subjecting both the girls to sexual intercourse against their will. It is argued that it was not only that Mst. Umtal Kalsoom who was involved in the instant case but also the other girl, namely, Mst. Perveen Akhtar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record not only the statement made by Mst. Umtal Kalsoom before the Magistrate on 4th May, 1981 but also the statement made by Mst. Perveen Akhtar on 4th May, 1981 before the same Magistrate. She has also stated in her statement that she had not been abducted by any one but had run away from her house at her own accord alongwith the clothes and ornaments in order to marry Muhammad Sharif alias Kale Khan, her fiancee. In the light of what has been discussed above prima facie it A appears that these girls have run away at their own accord and have given statements primarily before the Magistrate 1st Class to the effect that they had not been abducted by any one. So far as Mst. Umtal Kalsoom is concerned, she has not only made the above statement but a photo copy of nikah nama is placed on the record to show that she subsequently married Manzil Shah, one of the co‑accused. In that view of the matter I am of the view that a case is made out for the grant of bail to Ashraf Ali petitioner. I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad.

Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.