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. 2512/B of 1985, decided on 3rd November, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 a 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Abductee making a statement before a Magistrate that she contracted marriage with accused of her own and no body had abducted her‑‑Accused and abductee (co‑accused) admitting that they were husband and wife inter se‑‑Though accused was behind bar for a continuous period exceeding one year yet trial not commencing‑‑Accused allowed bail in circumstances.
Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner.
Mehruf Ahmed Ali for the State.
Amen Ullah alias Mahni petitioner is involved in a case under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. He has moved this petition for bail. The case was registered on 16th August, 1984 on a written application made by Fazal Muhammad complainant before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. In the application, it is alleged that on 10th August, 1984 the complainant and his wife took their ailing son to the Darbar of Faqir Butianwala. At about 11 p.m. the complainant returned home and was informed by his son and daughter that Amen Ullah and Muhammad Yunus had taken away his other daughter Mst. Nasreen bibi at about Isha prayer time on the pretext that her father and mother had called her. The complainant searched for her, but to no avail.
On 27th August 1984, Mst. Nasreen Bibi made a statement before Mr. Mukhtar Ali, Duty Magistrate, that two years back she had contracted marriage with Amen Ullah of her own and no body had abducted her.
2. The petitioner moved an application in the Sessions Court which was dismissed on the ground that the Nikahnama produced by him during the investigation was found to be forged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner and co‑accused Mst. Nasreen Bibi admit that they are husband and wife, therefore, the question of the commission of Zina does not arise. He further states that the petitioner is behind the bar for a continuous period exceeding one year, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. The learned State counsel concedes that the petitioner was arrested more than a year back and is in jail since then. The petitioner was arrested on 13th September. 1984 and his trial has not yet commenced. 1, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner. Faisalabad.
H.A.K. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer