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 Petition for Leave to Appeal 29/11 of 1986, decided on 29th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 13‑5‑1986 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 154/11 of 1986).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 11 & 16‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑Accused‑respondents charged under Ss.11 & 16 of Ordinance‑‑Order of High Court allowing them bail challenged on ground that offence being punishable with imprisonment for 10 years, respondents should not have been allowed bail merely because police no more required their presence and that High Court did not record its satisfaction that there appeared reasonable ground for believing that respondents were not guilty‑‑Supreme Court after examining facts of case found that High Court had exercised its discretion rightly and declined to interfere‑‑Petition dismissed.
Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 29th June, 1986.
Cancellation of bail granted to the two respondents namely Muhammad Bashir and Mst. Ghulam Sakina is sought by this petitioner on the ground that the two accused/ respondents committed an offence punishable with imprisonment for 10 years, and, therefore, they should have not been allowed the concession of bail merely because the police no more requires the presence of the two accused, and that the bail has been allowed by the learned High Court Judge without recording the satisfaction of the Court that there appeared reasonable grounds for believing that the accused /respondents have not been guilty of. offences under sections 11 and 16 under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (Ordinance VII of 1979).
2. We have examined the facts of the case. The two accused/ respondents, named above, were charged by the complainant Saleheen for offences under sections 11 and 16 of the aforesaid Ordinance. On the other side, there evidence that Mst. Ghulam Sakina accused/ respondent divorced by her husband Hayat Muhammad and that the accused /respondent Muhammad Bashir had no knowledge that Mst. Ghulam Sakina was a married woman.
3. We find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has exercised his discretion rightly and we see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, dated 13th May, 1986. Petition is, consequently, dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer