Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1058‑B of 1981, decided on 2nd December. 1981.

------‑‑S. 497‑Bail------Petitioner allegedly entering into Nikah with abductee and on production of document Investigating Officer making no serious criticism about same‑Abductee a major, although levelling charges of rape against petitioner, yet petitioner claiming to be her legal husband‑Suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed a weak prior to registration of case‑Case requiring further inquiry in circumstances of case‑Bail allowed‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11.

Taj Muhammad Khan Langah for Petitioner.

Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa for the Complainant.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Munir Ahmed petitioner, against whom a case under section 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, has been registered at Police Station, Kabirwala, District Multan.

2. The prosecution case is that about a month prior to the lodging of the F.I.R.. Mst. Rukhsana alias Guddo, sister of the petitioner went to the house of Mahmood‑ul‑Hasan complainant to see the members of that family at about Ishawela. Mst. Guddo allegedly had brought out Mst. Haneefan Parveen, abductee, daughter of the com plainant to the fields on the pretext of answering the call of nature. As soon as they reached the fields, Munir Ahmed petitioner emerged from the hiding, took Mst. Haneefan Parveen forcibly with him. Mst. Haneefan Parveen was taken to Hyderabad (Sind) and then brought back to Multan from where she fled away to her father by having stolen an opportunity to do so. The case was registered after she had returned to the house of her parents, i.e. one month after the alleged occurrence of abduction. The petitioner had moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail, but the same was rejected by him vide order dated 31st November, 1981. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that Mst. Haneefan Parveen is major ; she is his legally‑wedded wife and that her parents had brought this false case against him in order to black mail him. He further contends that there is a delay of one month in reporting the matter to the police. The girl is with her parents and that the accused‑petitioner is lying in jail without trial.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition strenu ously on the ground that the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C.

5. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and find that the petitioner allegedly had entered into Nikah with the abductee on 28th January, 1981 at Hyderabad (Sind). This document has been produced during the investigation and the Investigation Officer present before me has not made any serious criticism about the same. The abductee is admittedly a major. No, doubt she had levelled allegation of rape against the petitioner, but at the same time the petitioner claims to be her legal husband. The petitioner is said to have filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 14th September, 1981, i.e. about a week earlier to the registration of this case. Be that as it may, in view of the claim of the petitioner that he had married the abductee and had got his Nikah registered necessarily his case becomes one of further inquiry. The fate of this case would certainly hinge upon the proof or disproof of document of Nikah. I, therefore, allow the petitioner bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A/C Kabirwala.

M.Y.M. 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.