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 Miscellaneous No. 2191‑B of 1981, decided on 29th August, 1981.
‑‑‑Ss.497 & 344‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16‑‑Bail‑‑Challan not submitted even after four months of arrest of accused‑‑Accused has right to demand early submission of challan‑‑Accused having been denied of his said right without any fault on his part and there being no admissible evidence prima facie in support of allegation of Zina against accused‑‑Accused, granted bail in circumstances.
Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioner.
Muhammad Shah Nawaz Khan for the State.
This is an application for bail in a case under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at P.S. Noorpur vide F.I.R. No. 12, dated 4‑3‑1981.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he took away Mst. Saeed Fatima with intent to have sexual intercourse with her and that subsequently he committed Zina with her.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit that so far as section 16 is concerned, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As regards the offence under section 10, there is no evidence of the commission of Zina against the petitioner because Mst. Saeed Fatima is being challaned as an accused and she cannot be examined as witness against the petitioner.
4. As against this, the learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed this application and states that the confessional statement of Mst. Saeed Fatima implicates petitioner Muhammad Ansar in the commission of an offence punishable under section 10 of the said Ordinance.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the petitioners were arrested on 29‑4‑1981 and the challan has not been submitted so far. I am of the opinion that to demand early submission of challan is right of an accused person and in this case he has been denied of his right without any fault on his part and there is no admissible evidence in support of allegation of Zina against the petitioner.
6. In the circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha.
H.A.K Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer