Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1478/13 of 1984, decided on 16th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10, 11 & 16‑‑F.I.R. lodged after delay of 1 months Co accused already allowed bail‑‑Case of accused at par with male co‑accused having been already granted bail‑‑Another co‑accused not even arrested by police‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.

M. Akmal Salimee for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 16th July, 1984.

The present case was registered on the statement of Mst. Quraishan on 6‑3‑1984 at 7‑30 p.m. It was alleged by her that about 1 months earlier she was present in her house when Mst. Marrayam came to her and took her towards the Chiragha on the pretext to ease themselves. When she alongwith Mst. Marrayam reached near the Chiragha, suddenly Ghulam Haider, and Noor Ahmad petitioners armed with gun and pistol respectively came out of the field o: sugar‑cane. Mst. Marrayam was a sister of Noor Ahmad accused. She told him that she had brought Mst. Quraishar and he can satisfy himself. At this Noor Ahmad and Ghulam Haider pus her on mare and proceeded towards North. Mst. Quraishan further alleged that she wanted to raise alarm but kept quite out of fear, Iqbal and Nasir Ahmad P.Ws. tried to rescue her but did not come near on account of fear. Mst. Quraishan further stated in the F.I.R. that she was taken to the house of one Nazar where lqbal, Noor Ahmaa and Ghulam Haider committed rape on her. She was then taken to. Chak Saidan Wala in the house of one Manik Ali and there also both Noor Ahmad and Haider committed rape on her. She was then taken to the house of one Khan in Jhok Ghuman where again the accused committed Zina with her. Mst. Quraishan got an opportunity when Noor Ahmad and Ghulam Haider went out of village and she ran away from that house and contacted one Khair son of Lal in Chak No. 47‑D who informed her relatives who took her to the house whereafter the present case was registered. The petitioner was arrested whereafter he moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Okara but did not succeed. Hence this petition.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that Ghulam Haider was never arrested by the police. He was made to join the investigation. The statement was recorded whereafter he was allowed to go away. Mst. Marrayam and Iqbal, co‑accused of the petitioner have already been allowed bail by the lower Court. It is, therefore, contended that the case of present petitioner is not different from Haider, lqbal and even Mst. Marrayam. It is further contended that Mat. Quraishan is a woman of easy virtue and she had totally made a false case against the petitioner and the F.I.R. was recorded by the delay of 1J months. It is, therefore, argued that the case is for further inquiry and he be allowed bail till the disposal of the case. The learned counsel for the state has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

3. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. The case was reported after a delay of 1 months. The co‑accused of the petitioner have already been allowed bail by the lower Court. There was an allegation of rape against lqbal also like the present petitioner and as such the case of petitioner is not distinguishable from that of Iqbal. The accused Haider was not even arrested by the police. In this view of the matter I find that the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry and he is allowed bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Okara.

M.A.K. Bail granted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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