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. 3085-B of 1983, decided on 10th January, 1984.
-- S. 497/498-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), 'Ss. 10, 11 & 13-Bail - No reasonable grounds appearing to believe that accused was guilty of offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years Case of further inquiry made out-Bail granted.
Zia Mahmud Mirza for Petitioners.
Muhammad Latif for the State.
Petitioners seek bail in case F. I. R. No. 86/82 Police Station kila Soba Singh. District Sialkot, registered under sections 11 and 13 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Offence under section 10 of the same Ordinance was also added later on.
2. According to F. I. R., the prosecution case is that Mst, Suraiya, the alleged abductee, was married to Zaka Ullah. Mst. Irshad Bibi. daughter of Muhammad Boota was married to Nur Ahmad, a cousin of Zaka Ullah. It is alleged that during his visits to the house of her daugh ter, Muhammad Boota developed illicit relations with Mst. Suraiya, the alleged abductee. It is stated in the first information report that he was once caught committing Zina with Mst. Suraiya but was let off.
3. Mst. Sardar Bibi petitioner is wife of Boota while Mst. Irshad Bibi petitioner is his daughter. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had enticed away Mst. Suraiya while she was staying in the house of one Muzaffar, some 20-22 days prior to the registration of F . I. R.
4. Mst. Suraiya has already been recovered. Her statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. has been recorded. The A. S.-I. who is in atten dance, has stated that she has levelled the allegation of Zina having been committed upon her by Muhammad Boota.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the peti tioners have been involved only to vindicate feelings of vengeance against Boota and that in fact they had not played any role. It is contended that even otherwise the action attributed to the petitioners does not seem to be reasonable and plausible.
6. The petitioners are in jail since 22nd October, 1983. The alleged abductee has already been recovered. There do not appear to be reason able grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punish able with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. A case for further enquiry, as such, has been made out.
In this view of the matter, the petitioners are allowed bail. They shall be released on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal.
M. Y. H. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer