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. 290-B of 1983, decided on 16th February, 1983.
---S. 497/498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860)S. 318--Offence of Zina (Enforce ment of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) S.10-- Bail--Accused complainant, but later challaned as accused for offence of rape--Accused, as complainant makes application for constituting a Medical Board in hope that if Board gave a different opinion, that will corroborate his version as contained in First Information Report--Allegations against accused very serious in nature--Bail refused.
Ch. Khalid Mahmud for Petitioner.
Ch. Mahbub Alam for the State
Malik Muhammad Rashid Awan for Complainant.
Abdur Rashid petitioner who is involved in a case under section 318, P.P.C. and Article 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Huddod) Ordinance, 1979, has moved this petition for bail.
2. On 19th September, 1982 Abdur Rashid petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Sadar Faisalabad alleging that his unmarried niece Mst. Shameem Akhtar who had illicit relations with Ghulam Hussain, was pregnant and 8/9 days earlier [lam Din and his wife Mst. Jannat had caused her abortion. The case was investigated by the local police and a challan for the aforesaid offence against Mst. Shameem Akhtar and Ghulam Hussain was sent to the Prosecution Branch. After checking the papers, the District Attorney and the P.D.S.P directed that Abdur Rashid petitioner be challaned in the case and Ghulam Hussain and Mst. Shameem Akhtar be cited as witnesses against him. Shameem Akhtar and Ghulam Hussain were ultimately discharged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Shameem Akhtar and Ghulam Hussain were found guilty in the investigation conducted by the local police, therefore, the case requires further inquiry. He further submits that Mst. Shameem Akhtar was examined by a lady doctor who opined that no rape had been committed with her nor any abortion was caused, but the petitioner made an application that she be re-examined and a Board was constituted. It is submitted that if the petitioner had committed rape as alleged by Mst. Shameem Akhtar, he would not have made any such application.
4. I have gone through the relevant material. Mst. Shameem Akhtar appeared before the A.S.P. and the S.H.O. on 31st October, 1982 and 16th November, 1982, respectively, and her case from the very beginning was that she had been subjected to rape by Abdur Rashid petitioner. Mst. Shameem Akhtar has sworn an affidavit to the effect that Abdur Rashid petitioner is neither her uncle nor is related to her in any other manner. The mere fact that the petitioner made an application for constituting a Board, does not give rise to any presumption that he was innocent. This application was made on 18th November, 1982 when he was still occupying the position of a complainant. It was on 26th and 27th December, 1982 that the District Attorney and the P.D.S.P. directed that he be challaned as an accused. Obviously, he made the said application in the hope that if the Board gave a different opinion, it will corroborate his version as contained in the F. I. R. The allegations against the petitioner are of a very serious nature. In the circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for bail. The petition is dismissed.
M. Y. H. Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer