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 Appeal No. 2863‑B of 1985, decided on 14th December, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. lodged by prosecution, containing entirely a different version than one reported by her to Superintendent of Police through application‑‑Petitioner in jail for last about four months‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Allah Wasaya Malik for Petitioner.
Saleem Shad for the State.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1985.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and three others under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Darya Khan, Distt. Bhakkar.
2. According to the F.I.R. Mst. Waziran complainant had boarded a pick‑up (Datsun) for going home from Darya Khan. The pick‑up was being driven by Iqbal. The petitioner alongwith his brother Riaz and one Riaz Pavali (weaver) was also sitting in the pick‑up. While travelling on a canal bank, when they reached in the forest area, the complainant was asked to get down. When she got down, the petitioner also got down, caught her and committed Zina with her. When the other three wanted to commit Zina, the petitioner stopped them. Thereafter the petitioner alongwith others again started travelling alongwith the complainant, in the same pick‑up but the complainant finding opportunity, jumped out of the vehicle, and reported the matter to the Police.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the F.I.R. was lodged after 10 days, and that the story of the complainant that the petitioner had committed Zina with her in the presence of his real brother, is improbable.
Learned counsel further contended that in the application submitted by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, she had given entirely a different version.
Learned counsel stated that in fact neither name of the petitioner nor the name of anybody else was mentioned therein. Learned counsel stated that no allegation of Zina was levelled in that application.
Learned counsel for the State after having gone through the Police file, conceded that an application was submitted by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, and the same is on the Police file. Learned counsel states that in that application not only the name of the petitioner is not mentioned, but no allegation of Zina has been levelled against anyone else as well.
Learned counsel states that in fact nobody has been named in that application.
5. The petitioner is in jail for the last about four months. The F.I.R. said to have been lodged by the complainant, contains entirely a different version than the one reported by her to the Superintendent of Police through the application.
Keeping in view, the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact of two different positions having been reported by the complainant, to the Police. I feel a case of further enquiry is made out. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. twenty thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Bhakkar.
S. G. D. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer