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. 1025/B of 1986, decided on 17th May, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Bail sought on ground that female accused had been divorced by her husband (complainant) and she had contracted marriage with male accused‑ Divorce deed relied upon by accused was alleged by complainant to be a forged document‑‑No notice of Talaq was sent to concerned Chairman union council‑‑Father of female accused stating that she was never divorced by complainant‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.
Syed Iftikhar Ali for Petitioner No. 1.
Qazi Umar Draz for Petitioner No.2.
Rana Abdul Hamid Khan for the Complainant.
Shah Nawaz Khan for the State.
Date of hearing: 17th May, 1986.
Manzoor Hussain and Mst. Shamim Akhtar have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The case was registered, on the repeal of Rab Nawaz wherein he alleged that on 12‑10‑1984 Manzoor Hussain (petitioner herein) committed Zina with his wife Mst. Shamim petitioner in the house of his in‑laws. The occurrence was witnessed by Rab Nawaz complainant and his father. The complainant started slapping Mst. Shamim while Manzoor petitioner ran away from the spot. Manzoor petitioner is the brother of the wife of Muhammad Iqbal uncle of Rab Nawaz complainant, subsequently Mst. Shamim was taken away by Manzoor Ahmad petitioner, aforesaid Muhammad lqbal, his wife Mst. Kanizan, Ranjha Khan and his wife Mst. Fatima.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Mst. Shamim Akhtar had been divorced by her former husband Rab Nawaz and thereafter she contracted marriage with Manzoor Ahmad petitioner, therefore, the question of commission of Zina does not arise.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that the complainant had never divorced Mst. Shamim Akhtar and the alleged divorce deed is a forged document.
5. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted that no notice was sent to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. Allah Ditta, father of Mst. Shamim Akhtar, is present in Court. On enquiry he states that Rab Nawaz complainant had never divorced Mst. Shamim Akhtar and she is still his wife. In the circumstances, no ground for bail is made out. 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