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. 2790‑B of 1984, decided on 10th March, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Accused fully implicated by abductee in her abduction as well as commission of Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her‑‑Accused suppressing fact of being a married man while solemnizing alleged Nikah with prosecutrix‑‑Bail granted to accused by Additional Sessions Judge, cancelled in circumstances.
Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for the Petitioner.
Muhammad Bashir Mirza for the State.
Date of hearing: 10th March, 1985.
This is an application for the cancellation of bail of Nazir Ahmad respondent allowed to him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 14‑4‑1984 in a case under Article 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner in connivance with his wife Mst. Latifan deceitfully took away Mst. Muneeran aged 14/15 years from the house of her sister's husband. After recovery she was got medically examined. The hymen was found freshly torn and area around was slightly bruised. According to the Medical Officer her age was about 15 years. She was examined by the police. In the statement made by her she fully implicated the respondent stating that after abduction he had been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her and that he had forcibly got her signatures on some blank papers.
The learned trial Court granted bail to the respondent because a Nikahnama had been produced on behalf of the respondent showing a Nikah between the respondent and the abductee and further that she had not levelled any allegation against Mst. Latifan.
3. Cancellation is sought on the ground that Mst. Muneeran was not legally competent to contract marriage because she was less than 16 years of age at the time of the alleged Nikah. Copy of school leaving certificate has been produced. According to it she was born on 15‑7‑1969 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 2‑1‑1984. Furthermore, neither Nikah had been solemnized at the ordinary place of residence of Mst. Muneeran nor did any one of her relatives participate in it. She was a resident of Samundri whereas the Nikah was performed at Faisalabad. The Nikahnama relied on by the respondent was not produced before the police as a result of which its authenticity is highly doubtful.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent is named in the F.I.R. as also in the statement of Mst. Muneeran. She has levelled allegation of Zina‑bil‑Jabr against him. He was admittedly a married person but he has suppressed this fact while solemnizing the alleged Nikah with Mst. Muneeran. According to the medical examination and the school leaving certificate Mst. Muneeran was less than 16 years of age when the occurrence in question took place. The concession of omission of the name of Mst. Latifan from the statement of the abductee could not be extended to the respondent who was fully implicated by her in her abduction as well as commission of Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her. She was a virgin girl at the time of occurrence but subsequently when she was got medically examined her virginity was found lost.
In the face of above circumstances, there was hardly any justification for the grant of bail to the respondent. Accordingly I grant the petition and cancel his bail. The trial Court shall expeditiously proceed with the case. Needless to say that none of the observations made above will prejudice the Court in any manner.
S.G.D. Bail cancelled
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer