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. 1085/B of 1986, decided on 17th May, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Art. 10‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Accused alongwith his co‑accused allegedly raped a deaf and dumb woman‑‑Medical evidence showing that victim was subjected to sexual, intercourse‑‑Delay of four days in lodging F.I.R. had been properly explained‑‑Complainant having no enmity with accused‑‑Fact that co‑accused was found innocent, held, would not as a matter of right entitle accused to bail‑‑Case of each accused, held further, was to be decided on its own merits‑‑Bail refused'‑in circumstances.
Mian Nusrat Ullah for Petitioner.
Farooq Baidar. Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 17th May, 1986.
A case under section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, was registered against Muhammad Sharif alias Nikka and Ghulam Hussain. Allegation against Muhammad Sharif is that on 5‑7‑1985 at 10/11‑00 a.m. he alongwith his co‑accused Ghulam Hussain raped Mst. Iqbal Bibi, a deaf and dumb woman, aged about 40 years in a sugarcane field while she was returning after serving meals to her brother. Muhammad Hanif brother‑in‑law of lqbal Bibi lodged report.
2. After his arrest the petitioner applied for bail. The application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad by order, dated 19‑1‑1986.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after four days of the occurrence. Prosecution has not given any explanation to that effect. It was submitted that during this interval the complainant took his time to find out the means of falsely implicating the petitioner.
3. According to the learned counsel the case against the petitioner is false. He has been implicated because complainant Muhammad Hanif was inimical to his family inasmuch as Muhammad Shafi, a brother, and Munir, an uncle, of the petitioner were earlier involved in a murder case. The appeal and murder reference against the conviction and sentence of the said two persons are pending in the High Court. The petitioner has been involved so that he may not pursue the case of his relatives. It was further contended that initially two persons were challaned. Ghulam Hussain was found innocent. Therefore, the possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
4. The Assistant Advocate‑General opposed the bail. With regard to the delay he submitted that the matter was first brought before Panchait but as it could not be finalised there the complainant eventually lodged report with the police. Thus, four days delay stands duly explained.
5. Counsel for the petitioner laid great stress on delay. I think that has been properly explained. As the Panchait could not do anything for the aggrieved party the complainant was left with no option but to report the matter to the police. With regard to the other contention learned counsel has not been able to establish any direct or indirect link of the complainant with the murder case.
6. The fact that the co‑accused was found innocent would not as a matter of right entitle the petitioner to bail. Case of each accused is to be decided on its own merits.
7. The medical evidence shows that Mst. Iqbal Bibi was subject to sexual intercourse. I do not think the petitioner is entitled to bail. 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