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. 2868-B of 1986, decided on 19th November, 1986.
---S. 497 -Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 16--Bail, grant of--Admittedly no evidence available to prove commission of Zina and petitioner herself being subject of abduction, provisions of S. 16 of Zina Ordinance, not attracted to her case--Petitioner a woman with a suckling baby allowed bail, in circumstances.
---S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16--Bail, grant of--Abductee seen travelling in a wagon in company of petitioner--Petitioner also enticed away abductee once before but she was returned on intervention of Panchayat--Apprehension that petitioner might repeat offence, held, not ruled out, in circumstances- Bail declined to petitioner.
Ch. Riyasat Ali for Petitioners.
Zahid Hussain for the Complainant.
Rana Saeed Ahmad for the State.
Mst. Karam Bibi and Muhammad Ashraf petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them under Articles 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The prosecution version is that on 22-3-1986 Muhammad Ashraf petitioner enticed away Mst. Karam Bibi petitioner. At the time of occurrence she was residing in the house of her maternal-uncle Muhammad Rasheed, complainant. He searched for her and during the course he was informed by Muhammad Siddique and Jamal Din that they had seen Mst. Karam Bibi petitioner alongwith her suckling child in a wagon in the company of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner and others. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that the accused persons had abducted Mst. Karam Bibi for illicit intercourse.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no evidence to the commission of Zina and Article 16 of Ordinance VII of 1979 is not attracted, therefore, it is virtually a case of no evidence.
Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner was having illicit relations with Mst. Karam Bibi petitioner since long and had enticed her away even earlier in the year 1982 and she was restored to her relatives on the intervention of a Punchayat.
4. I have perused the record and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted that there is no evidence to the commission of Zina. In case of Mst. Karam Bibi petitioner, Article 16 of the Ordinance is not attracted. She is a woman with a suckling baby in her lap. A case for her enlargement is, therefore, made out. I admit her to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate. Jauharabad. The surety will be either her husband or a person related to her within the prohibitory degree.
The case of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner, however, stands on a different footing. There is no evidence of Zina against him, but the prosecution has the support of the witnesses with regard to the offence under Article 16 of Ordinance VII of 1979. Furthermore, decision of the Punchayat dated 17th November, 1982, placed on the police file, shows that Mst. Karam Bibi petitioner was enticed away by Muhammad Ashraf petitioner even earlier on 9-11-1982. That incident was not reported to the police and on the intervention of the Punchayat the matter was compromised on the condition that the accused party would give the hand of a girl of their family to the complainant party. There is every apprehension that if Muhammad Ashraf is released on bail, he will repeat the offence. The petition in so far as it relates to him is dismissed.
S. G. D. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer