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. 1361-B of 1982, decided on 14th November, 1982.
---S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 11--Bail, grant of--Alleged abduction of a major lady of about 20 years of age and habitual to sexual intercourse Abductee in company of petitioner from place to place without allegedly travelling -Pe-petitioner claiming to be legal husband of abductee and any protest- n whether she was a willing party to her Niksh with petitioner question a further inquiry--Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Syed Zawar Hussain Shah for Petitioner.
Tassadaq Hussain Jilani, A.A.-G. for the State.
Ali Muhammad petitioner stands arrested in case F.1. R. No. 92, dated 13-5-1982 registered at police Station Saddar, Vehari under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for having abducted Mst. Zulakhan aged 20 years, sister of Haji Muhammad complainant. The petitioner was declined bail by the Additional Sessions Judge on 25-9-1982. Hence this petition.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Mst. Zulakhan was approached by the petitioner and his three brothers about 7 days before the registration of the case and took her with them on the retext that they would take her to the house of her father in the nearby village. She remained unheard of till she met her brother complainant) at Larkana on 9-5-1982 per chance, who brought her to Vehari and produced her before a Magistrate on 28-f-1982 for recording her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. In that statement she deposed that the petitioner and his three brothers had made her to inhale some stupefying drug as a result of which she became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness, she found herself at Rahimyar Khan wherefrom she was taken to Larkana. The petitioner committed rape with her continuously till she met her brother and came back to Vehari. The petitioner produced a Nikahnama claiming that the prosecutrix contracted marriage with him of her own free will. The abductee has explained that her thumb-impressions were obtained on the Nikahnama per force. This Nikahnama is purported to be signed by father of the abductee as well but he also disclaimed to have testified that Nikahnama.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned A.A.-G. and perused the record.
4. It is admitted before me that the abductee is a major lady of about 20 years of age. She is habitual to sexual intercourse. There is some discrepancy in the facts of the case narrated in the F.I.R. and the story given by the abductee in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. However, the fact remains that the petitioner claims to be the legal husband of the abductee who obviously had travelled from Vehari to Rahimyar Khan and then to Larkana in the company of the A petitioner without any protest on the way. In these circumstances it certainly needs further inquiry as to whether the abductee was a willing party to the Nikah with the petitioner or not. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow his petition. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Vehari.
S.G.D. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer