Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 196 of 1983, decided on 12th April, 1983.

---S.497/498--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11 a 16--Bail--No explanation given by complainant why delay of twelve days occurred in lodging first information report--Despite intensive interrogation from accused, Police unable to secure abductee- Statement of prosecution witness under S. 161, Cr. P. C. failing to make out prosecution case--Bail granted.

Attaullah Khan for Appellants.

Sattar Shaikh, A.A.-G. for the State.

The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted, that applicants were arrested as far back as on 6th February, 1983, but till today inspite interrogation of these applicants, the police have not been able to secure the alleged abducted girl. The learned counsel further submitted, that there is no evidence available with the prosecution even to show, that Mst. Shamim was actually abducted by these applicants from the place, where she was supposed to be working. In addition to this there was delay of 12 days in lodging of F.I.R., which has not at all been explained by the complainant. In view of this, the case against the present applicants would require further inquiry at the stage of trial and consequently applicants are entitled to grant of bail. In support of these contentions, the learned Advocate for the applicants has relied upon case reported in N L R 1983 Cr. L J 168.

The learned A.A.-G. appearing for the State at the out set submitted, that he was not opposing the above application at this stage. He, however, submitted, that Mst. Shamim has not yet been recovered and as such the above application may be kept pending for some time.

I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the F.I.R., and the statements of P.W. Ghulam Abbas recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.

It is an admitted position that there was delay of 12 days in lodging of F.I.R. which has not at all been explained in the F.I.R. by the complainant. It is also an admitted position, that police in spite of intensive interrogation from the applicants has been unable to secure Mst. Shamim till today. The statement of P.W. Ghulam Abbas Shah under section 161, Cr.P.C. itself does not make out the prosecution case as alleged in the p F.I.R. In view of these facts on record, in my opinion this is a fit case for grant of bail to both the applicants. I, therefore, allow the above application and direct, that applicants be released on bail on their furnishing sureties in the sum of Rs.30,000 each, with the P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

However, it will be open to the learned trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the present applicants, if prosecution is able to produce any further evidence, after recovery of Mst. Shamim against the present applicants, in accordance with law.

Any observations made by me regarding the merits of the case in question are tentative and as such shall not be binding of the learned trial Court.

M. Y. H. 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.