Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1986 in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal 106/R of 1985, decided on 9th February, 1986.

(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 9‑7‑1985 Cr. M. 152‑R of 1985).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498‑ Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34 & 201‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforce ment of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 16‑‑Principle governing bail and cancellation of bail‑‑Offence under S. 302/34/201, P.P.C., read with S. 10/16 of Ordinance of 1979‑‑Unexplained inordinate delay in registration of case‑‑Accused, held, entitled to grant of bail‑ Petition converted into appeal and bail allowed.‑‑[Delay].

Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Ghulam Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Date of hearing: 9th February, 1986.

‑‑Petitioners, charged under section 302/34/201 P.P.C. read with section 10/16 of the Zina Ordinance of 1979 had sought bail from the trial Court and vide order, dated 16‑4‑1985 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum enlarged on bail two accused /petitioners namely Tanvirul Hasan and Shaukat Ali but refused to admit Karim Haider accused to bail for reasons recorded in the order. When the matter came up before the Lahore High Court a learned single Judge sup motu issued notice to Tanvirul Hasan and Shaukat Ali to show cause why the bail granted to them by the learned trial Court should not be cancelled; and refused bail to Karim Haider vide the impugned order, dated 9th July, 1985.

2. Case against the petitioners is that on 5‑7‑1984 a case was registered with the Police Station Choa Saidan Shah at the instance of Abdul Aziz complainant under section 302/34/201, P.P.C. read with section 10/16 of the Zina Ordinance, 1979. In this report the complainant stated that on 21‑6‑1984 on his return from Taraveeh prayers he found his son Muhammad Nazir aged about 9/10 years missing from his cot. He inquired about him from his daughter‑in‑law Mst. Anwar Begum who informed him that Muhammad Nazir would be somewhere around and could not furnish any satisfactory explanation; thereafter he, alongwith Eid Muhammad and Muhammad Azam set out in search of Muhammad Nazir and also made an announcement on the loud‑speaker about the missing boy Nazir. While making search next morning when they reached near the well in the Dhok they felt suspicion that the body may have been killed, therefore, they sent down a man in the well who found the d3ad body of Muhammad Nazir in the well, and brought it out and buried it formally.

3. Complainant Abdul Aziz kept on making inquiries from various sources particularly from his daughter‑in‑law Mst. Anwar Begum who informed him on 25‑6‑1984 when he had gone from Taraveeh prayers on 21‑6‑1984 Tanvirul Hasan, armed with a gun entered the house, alongwith Karim Haider, Karim Haider raped her, the deceased Muhammad Nazir, who was lying asleep on the nearby cot, woke up and saw the accused/ petitioners and in order to keep the secret the accused /petitioners throttled Muhammad Nazir deceased. Shaukat Ali was standing guard outside the boundary wall of the house, they took the dead body of the deceased after threatening her that she should not disclose the occurrence to anyone and that due to fear she had been keeping quiet over the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this is a case where concession of bail should have been allowed to the accused/ petitioners; that the order of the High Court refusing bail to accused/ petitioner No.l and cancelling the bail of accused /petitioners Nos.2 and 3 was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order is contrary to the principles governing bail and cancellation of bail. Having gone through the impugned order and the record we find that the occurrence took place on 21‑6‑1984 and Mst. Anwar Begum informed the complainant Abdul Aziz about the detail of the incident on 25‑6‑1984 yet the complainant lodged the F.I.R. on 5‑7‑1984 without explaining the inordinate delay in the registration' of the case. We are, therefore, of the view that the accused/petitioners are entitled to bail at this stage. Petition is converted into an appeal and allowed. Bail granted to the three accused /petitioners in the sum of rupees twenty‑five thousand each with two sureties in the like amount in each case, to the satisfaction of A . C . Chakwal.

M. I. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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