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. 159/8 of 1987, decided on 7th February, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Allegation of Zina‑‑Accused claiming to have married each other, after getting dissolution of marriage decree from civil Court from lady accused's previous husband‑‑Allegedly lady accused's husband filing application for setting aside ex parte decree yet copy of such application not forthcoming and its contents not known‑‑Both accused allowed bail, in circumstances.
Mehr Mumtaz Hussain Lali for Petitioners.
Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State.
Jehangir and Mst. Kaneez petitioners are accused of Zina under sections 10/16 Hudood Ordinance VII, of 1979. The case was registered against them at Police Station Barana on 19‑4‑1986.
2. Ahmad Yar husband of Mst. Kaneez alleged that his wife left him about a month before the report and he learnt 3/4 days before the report that she was living with one Jehangir, petitioner. Their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded on 15‑10‑1986. All along, police appears to have done nothing towards the investigation of this case. The Police officers who appears with the record merely stated that the Police kept on tracing the petitioner. On the other hand, Mst. Kaneez, petitioner, claimed to have filed a suit on 3‑12‑1985 for the dissolution of her marriage against her husband Ahmad Yar. An ex parte decree was passed on 19‑6‑1986. The date of the institution of the suit does not reconcile with the date of her dissertion as given out in the FIR. Prima facie, it appears to be a much belated report.
3. The petitioners have claimed to have married each other. On behalf of the prosecution, it is contended that the informant has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Copy of the application is not forthcoming and its contents are not known. Police has not even cared to get its copy from the informant. Petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.5,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. /Duty Magistrate Chiniot.
S.G.D./J‑1/L Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer