Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2003‑B of 1984, decided on 31st July, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss.497 & 498‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner in no way involved in actual abduction of woman but allegedly assisted her abductor Conflict existing between two different investigations as in one petitioner found innocent while in other declared guilty‑‑Case against petitioner, held, one of further inquiry and there was no justification for cancellation of his bail‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.

Malik Amjad Hussain for Petitioner.

Naseer‑ud‑Din Ahmad for the State.

Date of hearing: 31st July, 1984.

The present case was registered on ‑ 17‑2‑1984 on the statement of Ghulam Muhammad under sections 10/16 Ordinance No. VII of 1979 wherein it was alleged by the complainant that he was married to Mst. Bhag Bhari and had issues out of the wedlock. He alleged that Sarfraz, a maternal‑cousin of his wife Mst. Bhag Bhari, developed illicit relations with her and on 16‑2‑1984, enticed her away for committing illicit inter course with her. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that Sarfraz had abducted Mst. Bhag Bhari with the help of Piaya Khan accused‑petitioner. After registration of the case, the police undertook investigation. The petitioner was arrested and he applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, which was allowed vide order dated 9‑6‑1984. It is recorded in this order that during investigation, the police found Piaya Khan innocent. Subsequently it appears that the complainant filed an application for cancellation of bail which was accepted vide impugned order dated 16‑7‑1984. It was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the Investigating Officer who had appeared at the time of hearing of the bail application, had mis‑stated the fact that the petitioner Piaya Khan had been found innocent. It was further recorded in that order that in a subsequent investigation by Muhammad Nawaz A.S.I., Piaya Khan had been found guilty. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, thought that the first Inspector when he appeared in Court with record concealed the fact of subsequent investi gation from Court. As a result of this, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if in a subsequent investigation, the petitioner had been found guilty then also there was a conflict between the two different investigations; in one he was found innocent and in another investigation he was found guilty. This fact was enough to hold that the case of the petitioner was that of further inquiry. From a perusal of the F. I. R. I find that k the petitioner was in no way involved in the actual abduction of Mst. Bhag Bhari. She had been abducted by Sarfraz. The only allegation is that the petitioner assisted him in that abduction. This allegation appears to be vague. There was, therefore, no justification for cancelling the bail of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the interim bail allowed to the petitioner is confirmed.

S. G. D. Bail 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.