Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 863‑B of 1986, decided on 16th April, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Victim and three of alleged eye‑witnesses; including father and mother of victim swearing affidavits and victim arid her mother making statements under S.164, Cr.P.C. that case was false and accused was implicated due to enmity with an ex‑Policeman‑‑ Accused allowed bail in circumstances.
Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Petitioner.
Muhammad Sharif for the State.
Hassani petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Article 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
The allegations are that on 17th September, 1985 at 10/11 a.m. the petitioner while armed with a carbine held Mst. Kaniz, daughter of Allah Ditta, in a sugarcane field and committed Zina‑bil‑jabr with her under threats of death. On the alarm of Mst. Kaniz her mother Mst Janatan, her father Allah Ditta, Luqman and Basharat got attracted and the petitioner fled away giving threats of death to all of them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is an absolutely false case registered at the instance of one Ghulam Muhammad Theem, a retired Sub‑Inspector of Police, who is inimically disposed of towards the petitioner due to a dispute over. a watercourse. It is submitted that Mst. Kaniz, her father, mother and Luqman P.W. have sworn affidavits and M.st. Kaniz and Mst. Janatan have also made statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. that it is a false case and no occurrence of the type had ever taken place. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
3. The affidavits of Mst. Kaniz, her father Allah Ditta, her mother Mst. Janatan and Luqman P.W. have been placed on the file. Affidavit of Mst. Kaniz is to the effect that she is illiterate, the petitioner had not committed Zina with her and Ghulam Muhammad Thanedar got this false case registered against him through her as he is on inimical terms with the petitioner. Her statement and that of her mother recorded by Magistrate First Class, Chiniot, on 10th April, 1986 are to the effect that this is a false case and the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to enmity with Ghulam Muhammad ex‑Thanedar. In the circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot.
H. A. K. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer