Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2241/B of 1985, decided on 12th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 354‑A‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Accused forcibly removing Chadar of prosecutrix, making her naked and started dragging her alongwith co‑accused and seen in such condition by witnesses‑‑Allegation prima facie connecting accused with commission of offence‑‑Bail cancelled in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 354‑A‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Accused allegedly holding prosecutrix by her arm and joining co‑accused in dragging her‑‑Others kept standing nearby‑‑Order granting bail to accused not interfered in circumstances.

Muhammad Yamin for Petitioner.

Muhammad Yusuf for the State.

Ehsan Qadir and Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Respondents.

Rehmat Khatun petitioner has moved this petition for cancellation of bail allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, to Khan Muhammad, Ghulam Haider, Muhammad Afzal and Sher Muhammad respondents in a case registered against them under section 354‑A/34, P.P.C. The allegations are that on 16th June, 1985 at about noon time when Mat. Rehmat Khatun was on way to her 'Khooh', the respondents suddenly emerged from a reed‑growth. Ghulam Haider respondent held her by her arms while Khan Muhammad respondent forcibly removed her Chadar and made her naked. Then both of them started dragging her and loudly exclaimed that she should call her brothers. Muhammad Afzal and Sher Muhammad, armed with Lathis, kept standing nearby. On the alarm of the prosecutrix, Ghulam Muhammad, Said Amir and her brother Nazar Muhammad got attracted. On seeing them the accused persons ran away. Khan Muhammad waived the Chadar of the prosecutrix on a stick and on reaching his well tied it with a tree and threw a challenge that if any body had the courage he may take it away.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie connect the respondents with the commission of offence as there is a clear‑cut allegation, supported by four witnesses, that the prosecutrix was stripped of her clothes and exposed to public view. It is submitted that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, therefore, there was no justification for the grant of bail. The learned State counsel supports the prayer for cancellation of bail.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that two volitional acts of the accused are required to constitute the offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C., namely, stripping the victim of her clothes and in that condition exposing her to the public view. It is submitted that the allegations prima facie show that the Chadar of the prosecutrix was removed at a lonely place and she was not brought to any public place to put her to public view.

3. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Allegation against Khan Muhammad respondent is that he forcibly removed the Chadar of the prosecutrix, made her naked and along‑with Ghulam Haider started dragging her. She was seen in that condition by Ghulam Muhammad, Said Amir and Nazar Muhammad. The allegation prima facie connects Khan Muhammad respondent with the commission of offence with which he has bee charged. The bail allowed to him is, therefore, cancelled. Ghulam Haider respondent is alleged to have held the prosecutrix by her arm an joined Khan Muhammad in dragging her. The part attributed to Muhammad Afzal and Sher Muhammad was that they kept standing nearby. The order granting bail to these three respondents does not call for an interference and the petition in so far as it relates to them, is dismissed respondent shall be taken into custody. The petition accordingly.

M.A.K. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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