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 Petition No. 47‑R of 1984, decided on 24th June, 1984.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 28‑4‑1984 in Crl. Misc. No. 90‑B of 1984).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(31‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 16 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑‑Adultery‑‑Bail‑‑Cancellation‑‑Husband of adultress making no grievance on her conduct‑‑Background of enmity between adultress and her close relatives‑‑Order of High Court admitting accused respondents to bail‑‑Held, suffers from no such infirmity as might require interference by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Mr. Karam Elahie Bhatti, Advocate on Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th June, 1984.
J.‑‑ The petitioner who is a complainant in a case registered under sections 10 and 16 of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd Ordinance), 1979 seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑4‑1984 whereby the two respondents were admitted to bail.
The petitioner complainant is the brother of Mst. Ghulam Fatima. She said to have been married to one Mumtaz sometimes in 1975. He was employed in the army. It was contended that for years Ghulam Fatima had been living in aduletry with Muhammad Khan respondent No.l. The first information report about the occurrence was lodged or 19th of July, 1083 complaining that Zina had been committed on the night of 10th and 11th of July, 1983. The respondents were arrested on 28th of July, 1983. The respondent No.2 was medically examined the same day, The learned .Sessions Judge admitted then to bail on 7th of August, 1983. Subsequently their bail was cancelled on 7‑3‑1984 when a report from the Chemical Examiner was received showing the presence of semen in the vaginal swabs. In this background, the two respondents approached the High Court for their re‑admittance to bail. The learned judge in the high Court admitted them to bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each With two Sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Pind Dadan Khan. Hence this petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence was prima facie made out as the husband of Mst. Ghulam Fatima was employed in the army and the report of the Chemical Examiner showed that adultery had been committed. It was also contended that as a result of the bail, the two respondents are still living together in adultery. There were witnesses who had deposed about the offence having been committed.
It appears that Mst. Ghulam Fatima is a married lady, her marriage, having taken place as far back as 24‑11‑1975. It is alleged that the two respondents are living in adultery since long. The husband made no grievance of any such conduct on her part. There is a background of enmity between Ghulam Fatima red her close relatives. In the circumstances, the order admitting them to bail suffers from no such infirmity as may require interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.
S. Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer