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 No. 127 of 1981, decided on 18th April, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, dated 28‑1‑1981 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 54‑B of 1981).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.498‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Accused charged under S.--16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑Sessions Judge relying, on valid Nikahnama, allowed bail to respondent‑‑High Court declined to interfere on ground that discretion exercised by ‑Sessions Judge did not suffer from any illegality which should call for interference-Supreme Court upholding that view, dismissed petition for leave to appeal.
Hamid Ali Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th April, 1981.
‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 28‑1‑1981 dismissing an application filed by petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to respondents who are accused in a case under section lfi of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
The respondents were released on bail by the Sessions. Judge, Muzaffargarh as he was impressed with the plea that Mst. Kaniz respondent had been earlier married to Khadim Hussain respondent oil 28‑9‑1980 under a valid Nikahnama registered at Liaqatpur District Rahimyar Khan. In his connection he observed as under:
"It is difficult for me, sitting as Presiding Officer of a. criminal Court to disbelieve or reject a Nikahnama registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 straightaway at this stage and to say that the marriage had not properly been performed on 28‑9‑1980 at Liaqntpur. The circumstances that Mst. Kaniz has appeared today in this Court with the accused/ petitioner is also of relevant consideration, though nothing can be said at this stage about both the Nikahnamas."
The High Court by the impugned judgment refused to interfere with the view of the learned Sessions Judge for the reason that "the discretion exercised by the lower Court does not appear to be suffering from any illegality which should call for interference by this Court at this stage."
The arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing in Support of this petition are identical to those raised before the High Court and our view in this regard is also the same as prevailed in the High Court.
The petition is, therefore, 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