Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1019-B of 1984, decided on 10th May, 1984.

---S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 16--Bail, grant of--Persons accused of offences not punishable with death, or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years held, to be granted bail as a normal rule and refusal an exception.

---S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 16--Bail, grant of--Abductee with nephew (co-accused) of accused persons and accused persons making genuine efforts to trace out whereabouts of their nephew and to recover abductee but not succeeding in their efforts--Police also keeping petitioners in their custody for eight days but not successful in recovering abductee and sending them to judicial lock-up--Petitioners, held, could not be kept as hostages to compel their relative to produce abductee nor any useful purpose could be served by detaining accused persons in jail--Bail allowed, in circumstances.

Liaqat Ali Sandhu for Petitioners.

Muhammad Aslam Khan for the State.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 1984.

The allegation against the petitioners is that the abductee Mst. Khurahid Bibi was seen with them and others including Ilyas co-accused it is, however, recorded in the F.I.R. that Mst. Khurshid Bibi took away ornaments along with her. Mst. Khurshid Bibi is a married woman and is stated to have been enticed away. The case, therefore, appears to be one under section 16 of Ordinance VII of 1979. The said offence is punishable with maximum sentence for seven years and thus falls out of the prohibition contained in section 497 (1) , Cr . P . C . The normal rule in such cases is to grant bail and refusal is an exception.

2. The petitioners were refused bail on the ground that the abductee had not yet been recovered. The police officer present in Court has after perusal of the police file, submitted that the Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that the abductee was with Ilyas co-accused, nephew of the petitioners. After securing an interim bail from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners had made genuine efforts to trace out the whereabouts of Ilyas and recover the abductee, but they did not succeed. However, by this conduct of their, they had succeeded in establishing their bona fide. In any way, the petitioners cannot be kept as hostages to compel their relative Ilyas to produce the abductee. The petitioners were arrested on 7-2-1984. The police kept them in their custody for eight days, but were not successful in recovering the abductee and, therefore, the police sent them to the judicial lock-up on 15-2-1984. No useful purpose can, therefore, be served by detaining the petitioners any more in the jail.

4. In view of this, I grant bail to the petitioners in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) without sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C.Gujranwale.

S. G. D. 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.