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. 3011-B of 1986, decided on 15th November, 1986,
---S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11--Bail, grant of--Allegation of forcible abduction and Nikah with abductee--No allegation of Zina made against accused in statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. nor even in F. I. R.--Allegation of abduction not levelled in suit for jactitation of marriage--No reference of forcible abduction made in her statement before Magistrate reference recovery under warrant under S.100, Cr. P. C .--Case being that of further inquiry bail granted in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Waraich for Petitioner.
Abdur Rashid for the State.
Naveed Shehryar for the Complainant.
The petitioners have been arrested in a case registered against them and others under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Chhanga Manga, District Kasur on the statement of Muhammad Ismail, father of the abductee on 7-9-1986.
According to F.I.R. Mst. Zubaida Begum was abducted by petitioners Nos.1 and 2 alongwith others forcibly, and then her thumb impressions were also obtained under coercion on the pretext that her Nikah was being performed, with petitioner No.1. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that at the time of abduction the accused were armed with pistols and guns. The occurrence is stated to have, taken place on 20-5-1986.
Statement of the abductee under section 164, Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 24-9-1986. In that statement also, similar allegations were levelled. However, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement before the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. any allegation of Zina has been levelled against any of the petitioners.
A suit for jactitation of marriage was filed by Mst. Zubaida Begum, abductee on 29-6-1986 wherein no allegation has been levelled against the petitioners of having abducted her. However, it is stated that Asghar Ali (petitioner No.1) had taken her to some place by deceit where in the presence of some other persons, her thumb impressions were obtained.
The abductee had also appeared before a Magistrate on a warrant under section 100, Cr.P.C. having been issued by the Magistrate on an application of petitioner No.1. There, also, the abductee had not made any reference to her having been abducted forcibly. This statement was recorded on 29-6-1986. Although she categorically stated that she had nothing to do with Asghar Ali (petitioner No.1) yet he was unlawfully claiming her to be his wife.
According to prosecution, the abduction took place in the month of May, 1986. The two documents on record, i.e. a copy of the Nikahnama and statement of the abductee, recorded while appearing before the Magistrate in pursuance to the warrants issued under section 100, Cr.P.C. do not contain any allegation of forcible abduction against any of the petitioners. No reference has been made to petitioner No.3 of having performed Nikah. Although the allegation of abduction has been levelled in the F.I.R. and the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. thereafter, but that happened 4 months after the alleged occurrence and 3 months after filing of suit for jactitation of marriage and statement made before the Magistrate.
In the circumstances, a case for further enquiry appears to have been made out. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees twenty thousand each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chunian.
S . A . Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer