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. 2781/B of 1985, decided on 9th December, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 18‑‑Bail‑‑Medical Examination of accused conducted after more than 24 hours of lodging of First Information Report for which no explanation given‑‑Belated medical examination representing an unsatisfactory aspect of prosecution case‑‑Victim on whom accused allegedly committed Zina twice, a grown up girl of 17/18 years of age‑‑Prima facie prosecution version appearing to be improbable‑‑Case of accused falling under subsection (2) of S. 497, Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Bail granted.
Sahibzada Anwar Hameed for Petitioner.
Muhammad Latif Dol for the State.
Date of hearing: 1st December, 1985.
Bagh Ali petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Articles 10 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
Bagh Ali petitioner and Mst. Parveen, first‑informant, are co‑villagers. The prosecution version is that on 18th April, 1985 the petitioner went to her house and informed her mother that her grandson Muhammad Amin, resident of Chak No. 14, was ill. On the morning of 19th April, 1985 her mother went to Chak No. 14 to enquire about the health of aforesaid Muhammad Amin. On the following night at 8 p.m. Mst. Hassan Bibi, mother of the petitioner, came to the house of Mst. Parveen and asked her to accompany her to the fields for answering the call of nature Mst. Parveen agreed. After covering a distance of two Acres, Mst Hassan Bibi lagged behind and in the meantime Bagh Ali petitioner emerged from a wheat‑crop and overpowered Mst. Parveen. He undressed her and committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her twice. The occurrence was witnessed by Ghulam Muhammad who was on round of his crops. On seeing him, the petitioner fled away. Thereafter, Muhammad Ibrahim and other persons also came there. The case was registered on 23‑4‑1985 on the report of Mst. Parveen.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is unexplained delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. and the medical examination was also conducted more than five days after the occurrence for which no explanation has been offered. He also pointed out that presence of semen five days after the occurrence was not possible and in that view of the matter the reports of the Chemical Examiner do not carry any weight. He further submitted that the prosecution version is highly improbable and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He argued that it was unbelievable that the mother of the petitioner would take away Mst. Parveen so that her son may commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her and it was equally unbelievable that the petitioner single handed would succeed in committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr twice with a grown up girl aged 17/18 years.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that the version of the prosecutrix was supported by the medical evidence and the reports of the Chemical Examiner.
3. I have gone through the relevant material and given my careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. The alleged occurrence took place on 19‑4‑1984 at 8 p.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on 23‑4‑1985 at 1‑20 p.m. In the F.I.R. Mst. Parveen stated that her father and brothers were away to Bahawalnagar, therefore, she could not lodge the report. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the medical examination was conducted more than 24 hours after the lodging of the F.I.R. for which no explanation at all is coming forth. Belated medical examination represents an unsatisfactory of aspect of the prosecution case. Co‑accused Mst. Hasan Bibi is the mother of the petitioner. It is the prosecution's case that she took A away Mst. Parveen on a false pretext in order to facilitate the commission of Zina‑bil‑Jabr by her son and that he committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr twice with Mst. Parveen who is a grown‑up girl, aged 17/18 years. Prima facie, there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel that the prosecution version is improbable. In the circumstance, I feel inclined to the view that the case of the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497, I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Kasur.
M.Y.H. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer