Find a Lawyer

S. 497-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10-Prima facie case against accused under Ordinance made out-Accused, held, not entitled to concession of bail.

K. M. Nadeem for Appellant.

Hasan Akbar, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.

The applicant Muhammad Yamin is charged for committing Zina with his. own daughter Mst. Shamo.

Briefly the fact, of the case are that Muhammad Jamil, nephew of the applicant Muhammad Yamin lodged F. 1. R. that since about for 2 years there were rumour in the Mohallah that Yamin was committing Zina with his own daughter. Subsequently there was meeting of the Mohallah people on 24-5-1985 where it was proved that applicant had sexual connection with his own daughter who became pregnant and was running 8 months of pregnancy. The case was registered. The applicant and Mst Shamo were arrested. The learned counsel Mr. K. M. Nadeem argued that there is delay in lodging the F. 1. R. and no positive proof of Zina has been produced by the prosecution. It is contended that Mg. Bashiran and Muhammad Shah parents of Muhammad Jamilh ave filed affidavits in which they have stated that the complainant Jamil is man of a questionable character, narcotic addict and he has falsely implicated the applicant.

Mr. Hasan Akbar learned A. A.-G. has opposed this application vehemently and stated that there is a serious allegation against the applicant for committing Zina with his own daughter due to which she became pregnant.

The F. I. R. of this case was lodged by nephew of the applicant Muhammad Yamin and no enmity at this stage has been proved with him.

His statement has been corroborated by the circumstances that daughter of the applicant and accused in this case was found pregnant and there is no satisfactory explanation for such pregnancy when she used to live in the house with her father. It is also clear that Mst, Shamo is a virgin girl and not married. The pregnancy was overlooked by the applicant and there are two eye-witnesses, namely Jamil and Amir Khan. They have fully implicated the applicant. It is for the trial Court to consider the evidence which is yeti to come on the record but at this stage prima facie case under Zina (Hudood' Ordinance) against the applicant is made out and in my view he does no t deserve concession of bail. This application is, therefore dismissed.