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.560/B of 1986, decided on 6th July, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss.497 & 498‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10(2) & 16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Name of accused not mentioned in F. I. R.‑‑Complainant divorcing abductee by written divorce deed‑‑Alleged abductee thereafter married accused‑‑Signatures of complainant admitted on Talaqnama though allegedly obtained by fraud‑ Matter, held, was of further probe and accused allowed bail in circumstances.
Taj Muhammad Khan Langah for Petitioner.
Agha Khurram for the State.
Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for the Complainant.
The petitioner has been arrested under sections 16 and 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. He has petitioned for being enlarged on bail.
2. The facts as embodied in the F.I.R. in substance are that Muhammad Ismail, who was the husband of Mst. Zubaida, lodged a complaint that Muhammad Ishaq and Eidoo had abducted Mst. Zubaida. The name of the petitioner‑ does, not find a mention in the F.I.R. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mst. Zubaida had filed a suit for a judicial divorce in the civil Court against Muhammad Ismail and conversely Muhammad Ismail had instituted a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights and the matter between the spouses was conciliated and Muhammad Ismail divorced Mst. Zubaida by means of a written divorce deed, dated 1‑5‑1984 and thereafter the suit for the dissolution of marriage was withdrawn. It has been further added that after the said divorce, Mst. Zubaida married the petitioner.
3. The leaned counsel for the complainant has admitted that on the Talaqnama tie signatures of Muhammad Ismail were obtained. He contends that said signatures were obtained by fraud. The particulars of fraud have not been furnished to this Court for the present. It appears to be a matter of further probe. I, therefore, allow bail to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Multan till the disposal of the case against him.
S.A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer