Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1359-B of 1982, decided on 14^th November, 1982.

-- S. 497(2) read with Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11-Bail, grant of-Except for solitary statement of proscutrix that accused took her away and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will no other evidence to connect accused with alleged offences - Story of abduction given in F. I. R. different to one given out by abductee in her statement recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. - No other evidence on record to show that abductee ever seen in company of accused or at time of her recovery he was seen somewhere near about that place-In F. I. R. prosecutrix dubbed as an accused but made a witness during investigation - Petitioner's case, held, one of further inquiry as contemplated by cl. (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C.- Bail allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner.

Mazhar Jamil for the State.

Haji Muhammad reported to Mukhdoom Rashid Police District Multan that his wife Mst. Ghulam Fatima had developed illicit relations with Ghulam Sarwar petitioner who lived in his neighour for some time., In December, 1982, she disappeared during the night, in the veil of darkness. Haji Muhammad was told by certain persons that they had seen Mst. Ghulam Fatima boarding bus with the petitioner and his relatives. A case was registered on 17th March, 1982 i.e. about three months after her disappearance. During the investigation Sub-Inspector Muhammad Sher on receipt of information raided bus stand Multan in the company of certain police officials and relatives of Ghulam Fatima. She was standing at the bus stand and was identified by Hassan Bakhsh her brother, and was made to join investigation. The same day, she made a statement before a Magistrate 1st Class, Multan wherein she averred that on the asking of the petitioner alone she accompanied him and lived with him at different places, where the petitioner subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. She also stated that she was brought by the petitioner for recording her statement before the Magistrate when her brother sported her and she joined the investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 13th September, 1982 i.e. about six months after the registration of the case from his residence. The co-accused of the petitioner mentioned in the F. I. R. are not being arrested by the police as has been stated by Muhammad Yousaf, S.-I. Incharge police post.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also seen the record and find that the abductee in this case has been made a witness and not challaned for committing Zina with the petitioner during the subsistence of her nikah with Haji Muhammad complainant. There is solitary statement of the abductee against the petitioner that the petitioner had taken her alongwith him and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. The story of the abductee given in the F. I. R. is different to the one given out by the abductee in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate 1st Class, Multan on 29th March, 1982. There is no other evidence on record to show that the petitioner was ever seen in the company of the abductee or that at the time of her recovery he was seen somewhere near about that place. The facts of the case do not disclose that it is a case liable for Hadd.

3. From the above narration of facts, it appears that there is a solitary statement of Mst. Ghulam Fatima abductee against the petitioner which needs scrutiny from this angle whether she is truthful witness or not because in view of the recitals in the F. I. R., she had been dubbed as an accused but for reasons known to the prosecution she has now been made a witness. For these reasons I am of the view that the petitioner's case is one of further inquiry to determine as if the petitioner is really guilty of the charges levelled against him or not. The result is that this petition succeeds and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. C./Duty Magistrate, Multan.

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.