Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD ALIAS MAMMI versus STATE


Criminal Code of Criminal Procedure (CR PC) Section 497 (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Sections 10 and 16 guaranteed any offense against the accused for adultery or fornication under section 16 of 1979 Ordinance VII. No, do not fall under prohibition Clause 5 of 497, Criminal Code of Conduct granted bail

1986 M L D 1834

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Rafiq Tarar

MUHAMMAD alias MAMMI‑‑Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2090‑B of 1986, decided on 11th August. 1986.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16‑‑Bail‑‑No allegation of Zina or Zina‑bil‑Jabr against accused‑‑Offence under S.16 of Ordinance VII of 1979, not falling within prohibitory clause of 5.497, Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Accused admitted to bail.

Ch. Abdur Rashid for Petitioner.

C.M. Latif for the State.

ORDER

Muhammad alias Mammi petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and another under Articles 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. The petitioner is the maternal‑cousin of Shameer complainant. The prosecution version is that six or seven days prior to 14th May, 1986 the petitioner took away Mst. Jindan, wife of the complainant, with complainant's permission. She did not return till evening. The complainant searched for her and during the course he was informed by Amir and Farid that she was going in the company of the petitioner and co‑accused Saeed Ahmed. The complainant then reported the occurrence to the police on 14th May, 1986.

On 14th May, 1986 Mst. Jindan made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein she alleged that the petitioner and his co‑accused took her to Jhang from where the petitioner slipped away and his co‑accused Saeedu took her to Samundari where he kept her for 10/12 days. From there he was taking her to some other place but on the way she raised alarm and the police apprehended her and aforesaid Saeedu. She further alleged that Saeedu had ravished her thrice.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no allegation of Zina or Zina‑bil‑Jabr against the petitioner. The offence under Article 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) A Ordinance, 1979, does not fall within the propitiatory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction Of, Assistant Commissioner, Jhang.

M.Y.H Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
jobs for fresh advocates from Chohar Jamali lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.