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. 1961-B of 1983, decided on 22nd August, 1983
---S.497 read with offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (V11 of 1979), 8.11--Bail, grant of-- All that is said about petitioner being that he helped husband of alleged abductee, in keeping his wife with himself--Question whether S.11 of Zina Ordinance attracted to facts of case also doubtful and yet to be looked into by trial Court--Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Malik Muhammad Ashhab for Petitioner.
Saeeda Bano for the State.
Against the petitioner, the allegation is that he had been keeping guard around the prosecutrix when she was forcibly abducted by co -accused Falak Sher and others. The case against the petitioner started on the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164, Cr.P.C. when she was recovered in the main case in which the co-accused Falak Sher and others had allegedly abducted her away. Although in that transaction one of the six assailant was killed yet that incident has no much relevance to the present petitioner. In the F.I.R. the abductee's own mother stated that she had been married to co-accused Falak Sher.
2. Counsel submits that if the husband forcibly takes away his wife and consumes marriage, it constitutes no offence, muchless of Zina. Against the present petitioner, however, there is no assertion. All that was said about him was that he helped the husband in keeping his wife with himself. To these facts according to counsel, section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 has no application. He, is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C.I Okara.
S.G.D. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer