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.2326-B of 1987, decided on 28th July, 1987.
---S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11--Incident of abduction was not witnessed either by complainant or anybody else--Statement of abductee under 5.164, Cr. P.C. implicating accused recorded a week after her recovery- Accused behind bars ever since his arrest--Except statement of victim there was no allegation of Zina against accused--A case for further inquiry made out--Accused admitted to bail in circumstances.
Muhammad Yusuf for Petitioners.
Muhammad Latif Doi for the State.
This is an application for post-arrest bail in case FIR No.79 dated 22-11-1986 registered at Police Station Green Town, Lahore, under section 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on the statement of Mst. Saeeda mother of the alleged abductees.
The case was reported on the allegations that on 19-11-1986, petitioners alongwith co-accused and Mst. Raeesa and Mst. Haseena, mother and wife of petitioners Nos.l and 2 respectively, abducted Mst. Farzana (18 years) and Mst. Shabana (4/5 years) from the house of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant had failed to obtain any information with regard to the whereabouts of the abductees although she had made inquiries from her relatives during the past three days.
2. On 7-12-1986 the alleged abductees were recovered. Mst. Farzana's statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was got recorded on 14-12-1986 wherein she alleged that after abduction, the petitioners also committed Zina with her.
3. The petitioners were arrested on 7-12-1986 and their application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 22-6-1987.
4. Bail is claimed on the grounds that the allegations against the petitioners are false; that Mst. Farzana is a grown-up woman and even according to the medico-legal report, no mark of violence was found on her person; and that they are behind the bars for the last about eight months. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and submits that Mst. Farzana has implicated the petitioners and that the offence with which the petitioners are charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and also perused the record. It has not been alleged by the complainant that the incident of abduction was witnessed either by her or anybody else. Mst. Farzana was recovered on 7-12-1986 and it was only on 14-12-1986 that her statement under section 164, Cr.P. C. was recorded in which she implicated the petitioners. The petitioners are behind the bars eversince their arrest on 7-12-1986 and except the statement of Mst. Farzana, there is no allegation of Zina against them. In the circumstances, a case for further inquiry is made out. Accordingly, petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of x.20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Lahore Cantt.
M. Y. H. /S-97/L ----- Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer