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. 1146/6 of 1986, decided on 15th May, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Accused and his co‑accused allegedly enticing away abductee‑‑In her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. abductee levelling allegation of Zina‑bil‑Jabar and abduction against accused‑‑On medical examination no injury was found on person of abductee‑‑Abductee had eighteen to twenty weeks pregnancy‑‑Contention that at best offence fell under S. 10(2) of Ordinance which did not fall under prohibitory clause repelled‑‑Offence under S. 10(2) of Ordinance, held, fell under prohibitory clause as same was punishable with imprisonment which might extend to ten years‑‑Accused was principal accused in case‑‑Challan had been submitted in Court‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.
Mozammal Khan for the Petitioner.
M. Sharif for the State.
Date of hearing: 25th May, 1986.
Muhammad Ashraf petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The prosecution version .is that on 26‑8‑1985 the petitioner and his co‑accused Mst. Mumtaz and Sarfraz enticed away Mst. Nasreen aged fourteen years, daughter of Muhammad Shafi complainant. He made strenuous efforts for her restoration, but to no avail. Mst. Nasreen was recovered on 5‑10‑1985. She made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 9‑10‑1985 wherein she stated that five months back Muhammad Ashraf petitioner herein trespassed into her house when she was alone and committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her under threats of death. Later on, aforementioned Muhammad Ashraf, Sarfraz and Mst. Mumtaz started living near her house and Mat. Mumtaz started visiting her house. She took her way on the pretext of purchasing bangles and ultimately she was abducted in a car by Sarfraz, Rehmat and Ashraf. They took her to a village in district Sialkot where they compelled her to marry Muhammad Ashraf but she declined to do so. Then they took her to another village. She was confined in a room and Ashraf had been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her. Later on, he brought her to Lahore for getting her statement but the police apprehended her alongwith Ashraf, Mst. Mumtaz and Rehmat.
3. Mst. Nasreen was medically examined on 7‑10‑1985. There was no injury on her person. Hymen was torn and the tears were old. She had eighteen to twenty weeks pregnancy. Two vaginal swabs were sent to the Chemical Examiner and his report is to the effect that the same were stained with semen.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no offence under Article 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, is made out and, at best, the offence falls under Article 10(2) of the Ordinance which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in jail for the last nine months and the trial is not in sight so far. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
5. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Offence under section 10(2) of Ordinance VII of 1979, falls within the prohibitory clause as the same is punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years. The petitioner is the principal accused in the case. The challan has already been submitted in the Court. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage. The petition is dismissed.
H. A. K. Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer