Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 264/B of 1986, decided on 2nd April, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 154‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement or Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 18‑‑First Information Report, delay in lodging of‑‑Attempt to commit Zina‑‑Father of prosecutrix serving abroad‑‑Reason for delay in making report by her mother, held, were explained by circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 16‑‑Attempt to commit Zina‑‑Motive for implication of accused alleged that petitioner/complainant's dog had bit accused's sister‑‑Dog bit injury was a minor abrasion and there was nothing to show that anti‑rabbit injunctions were given to victim‑‑Held, it would be highly improbable that complainant would put up her unmarried daughter to level a false case of such nature against accused.‑‑Motive disbelieved.

‑‑‑Ss. 497(5) & 498‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 18‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Three witnesses including prosecutrix supporting F.I.R.‑‑Delay in lodging F.I.R., motive for false implication and affidavit of one eye‑witness in favour of accused, held, would not be ground for allowing bail before arrest.

‑‑‑S. 497/498‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Deeper appreciation of evidence collected, held, could not be done at bail stage yet things and circumstances which on face of it speak for themselves could not be ignored.

‑‑‑S. 497/498 Bail before arrest‑‑Special circumstances such as victimization and false implication, held, had to be considered for bail before arrest but such things should not be vague‑‑Procedure for recording statement of witnesses under S.164, Cr.P.C. and affidavits made before Oath Commissioner fell short 6f proper scrutiny about the identity of deponent.

Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid for Petitioner.

K.M.Virk for Respondent No. 1.

C.M. Lattif for the State.

Mst. Zohra Begum petitioner, has come up for the cancellation of bail allowed to Shabbir Ahmad respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, in the case registered against the respondent under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood,) Ordinance VII of 1979.

2. Mst. Alia Mushtaq a student of 9th, class was often teased by the respondent on her way to school. Eventually or. 7‑12‑1985 the respondent caught her by the arm and succeeded in pulling her into house, despite tier resistance and alarm. He took her in a room and attempted to molest her but her alarm attracted people including her mother, Fazal Hussain and Shahid Saeed P. Ws. They rescued her from the duties of the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the case was foisted against his client in order to cover up the dispute between the parties which took place earlier the same day i.e. since petitioner's dog bit respondent's sister, there was, therefore, a quarrel between them. It was next argued that the F.I.R. was belated in this case and made after due deliberations. I have considered the submissions in the F.I.R. that Mst. Alia Mushtaq's father is serving in Abu Dhabi. This to my mind explains the delay in making the report by her mother. Although, the dog bite injury is a minor abrasion and there is nothing to show that anti rebbie injections were given to the victim; but assuming that the petitioner's dog bit respondent's sister, it would still be highly improbable that the petitioner would put up her unmarried daughter to level a false case of this nature against the respondent.

3. In allowing bail before arrest, the delay in the F.I.R. the medical report of Mst. Sumra Kausar sister of the respondent relating to the dog bite and the affidavit of Shahid Saeed the eye‑witness, weighed with the Additional Sessions Judge. In the first place, these were no grounds for allowing bail "before arrest" because including tile prosecutrix, there were three witnesses who support the F.I.R. It appears that the Additional Sessions Judge did not examine the nature of injuries of Mst. Sumra Kausar. No doubt, a deeper appreciation of the evidence collected cannot be done at the bail stage yet things and circumstances which on the face of it speak for themselves cannot be p ignored in cases of bail. For bail before arrest special circumstances such as victimization and false implication have to be considered but these things should not be vague. It has tune and again been observed by this Court that a procedure for recording the statement of a witness in a criminal case has been laid down under section 164, Cr.P.C. and affidavits made‑before an Oath Commissioner fall short of proper scrutiny about the identity of the deponent. In view of the allegations against the respondent, I do not consider that it was a fit case for bail before arrest. The bail allowed to him is, therefore, cancelled.

This order should not stand in the way of the Courts below for considering the question of bail after arrest.

M.A.K. Bail cancelled.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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