Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 534 of 1985, decided on 12th June, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused and co‑accused abducting abductee‑‑Abductee recovered from possession of both accused‑‑No allegation of Zina‑‑Accused father of co‑accused‑‑Case having not proceeded‑‑State not opposing bail of accused‑‑Case of accused, held, distinguishable from his co‑accused and needed consideration‑‑Accused allowed bail in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Accused and his co‑accused abducting victim and subsequently accused committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her‑‑Accused preparing bogus Nikehnama‑‑Abductee recovered from possession of both accused‑‑Sexual intercourse admitted by accused‑ Abductee in her statement stating that accused did commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her‑‑Bail refused to accused in circumstances.

Attaullah Khan for Applicant.

Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Addl.A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th June, 1985.

This is an application for bail on behalf of applicants Sardar Ali and Shaukat Ali in a case registered under sections 10 and 11 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Railway Police Bin, Qasim. Karachi.

2. The case against the applicants is that they abducted Mst. Rani daughter of complainant Muhammad Saeed and subsequently it is allegedly daughter of comply that the applicant Shoukat committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr.

3. Mr. Attaullah Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that this incident took place on 2‑9‑1984 and complaint was lodged on 21‑12‑1984. He has further argued that Mst. Rani married with applicant Shoukat on her own free will.

4. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, the learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail of Shoukal, He has stated that Mst. Rani was abducted and subsequently applicant Shoukat committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr and bogus Nikahnama has been prepared. He has no objection if applicant Sardar Ali is granted bail.

5. Mst. Rani has been secured from the possession of the applicants and sexual intercourse is admitted by applicant Shoukat. Mst. Rani in her statement has fully implicated both the applicants but she has stated that Shoukat did commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr. The case has not proceeded. There is no allegation of Zina against the applicant Sardar Ali. He is father of Shoukat. The case of Sardar Ali is distinguishable from applicant Shoukat and needs consideration. Sardar Ali is admitted to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned IIIrd Additionally Sessions Judge, Karachi. The application of Shoukat having no merits is dismissed.

N.A.K. Bail application partly allowed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.