Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3065/B of 1983, decided on 28th October, 1983.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898.)--

--S.497--Offence of Zina ( Enforcement of Hudood ) Ordinance (VII of 1979). Ss. 10 & 11--Bail--Abductee making divergent statements arid not naming accused- -Abductee, in her statement recorded by Magistrate stating that site contracted marriage with accused--Question of guilt of accused requiring further enquiry--Bail allowed.

Mian Abdul Saltar Najam for Petitioners.

Hafiz Ghutam Bari for the State.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Ghulam Haider arid Baqar petitioners in a case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zinc (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at P.S. Narianwal, vide F.I.R. No.53/83, dated 7-6-1983.

2. The prosecution case is that tire petitioners arid others abducted Mst. Azhara Parveen in order to subject tier to sexual inter-course.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Mst. Azhara Parveen has contracted marriage with Lal co-accused on tier own accord and that in her statement recorded under suction 164, Cr.P.C. oil 10-7-1983, she has not, involved the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the State has seriously opposed this application. He submits that Mst. Azhara Parveen in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. which was recorded after the was recovered from Darul Aman, has fully implicated both the petitioners; that the names of the petitioners are mentioned in the F.I.R. wherein it has been stated that the petitioners had abetted Lal Khan in the abduction of Mat. Azhara Parveen; that Lai co-accused is still absconding and that the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioners were arrested on 7-6-1983; that Mst. Azhara Parveen has made divergent statements; In her first statement recorded on 10-7-1983 she did not name the petitioners, in her statement recorded by the Magistrate on 25-7-1983, she stated that she had contracted marriage with Lal Khan co-accused on her own accord and that she was sent to Darul Aman on her own request.

5. Fur what has been found above, I am of the opinion that the question of the guilt of the petitioners requires further enquiry. The submissions made by the learned counsel in the circumstances of the case do not snake out a case for the refusal of the bail. The petitioners are, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surely each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Mandi Baha-ud-Din.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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