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 Bail Application No. 682 of 1986, decided on 20th October, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 366‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 17(3)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Applicant allegedly attempted to forcibly abduct two women of complainant party alongwith his co‑accused yet neither applicant's name appearing in F.I.R. nor any evidence relating to identification of applicant through such women brought on record‑‑Case against applicant, held, one of further inquiry, in circumstances‑‑Applicant allowed bail.
1986 P Cr. L J 2807 ref.
Pir Mazharul Haq for Applicant.
S. Sarfraz Ahmad, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Applicant alongwith other co‑accused is being tried for the offences punishable under section 3366, P.P.C. read with section 17(3) of Hudood Ordinance, 1979.
It is contended by Mr. Pir Mazharul Haq that name of applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. and two ladies have not identified the applicant. He has also argued that the property has not been recovered from the applicant and section 368, P . P. C . has been reported.
Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmad, learned A.A.‑G. has no objection to the grant of bail.
The case of prosecution is that on 3‑9‑1986 complainant Nasir Ahmed was in his land while his wife Mst. Amira and sister‑in‑law Mst. Yasmin were grazing cattle at the distance of one furlong. All of a sudden, he heard cries therefore, alongwith villagers namely Bashir Ahmed, Sharif and Hakim Ali went running and saw that 4 persons armed with Rifle, single barrel gun, hatchet and Lathi were trying to abduct Mst. Amira and Mst. Yasmin. Complainant fired towards the accused who were at the distance of 3 furlongs. The accused ran away. On enquiry Mst. Amira and Mst. Yasmin told complainant and other witnesses that' accused after snatching their ornaments were also forcibly taking them away. In F.I.R. name of Ahmed has been given while 3 culprits were said to be unidentified. The applicant was arrested on 13‑9‑1986 and was put to identification test in which complainant and 2 other witnesses picked him. Learned A.A.‑G. has stated that no identification test was held through 2 women. He has not been able to give the reasons for not arranging identification parade through Mst. Amira and Mst. Yasmin. Both the women are very important prosecution witnesses. There is no evidence relating to the identification of the present applicant through both the witnesses and his name does not appear in F.I.R. I am of the view that in these circumstances, the case requires further enquiry. The learned counsel has referred to a case reported in 1986 P Cr. L J 2807, The applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge Dadu.
S. G . D . Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer