Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.201/B of 1987, decided on 10th February, 1987.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No allegation of Zina against accused‑ Allegation of abduction as contained in F.I.R. found materially different from what was stated by abductee‑‑Case for enlargement of accused on bail, held, was made out in circumstances.

M. N. Tariq for Petitioner.

M.Sharif, for the State.

Ahmad Ali petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Article 11 o the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. 'The F.I.R. version is that on 29‑9‑1986 Hidayat, Shabbir Ahmad son of Hidayat, Ahmad Ali petitioner and Sardar stayed for the night at the house of Muhammad Akram complainant. During the night Muhammad Akram woke up to find that the outer door of his house was lying open and all the aforesaid persons alongwith his minor daughter Shahnaz Begum were missing. He started a search when he was informed by Muhammad Shafi and Abdur Razzaq that they had seen Mst. Shahnaz Begum in the company of some persons who were taking her to Lahore in a wagon. The case was registered on 2‑10‑1986.

3. On 6‑10‑1986 Mst. Shahnaz Begum made a statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she alleged that Mst. Seman, wife of Hidayat, took her away at 6 or 7 p. m. from her house. Co‑accused Shabbir and Ahmad Ali (petitioner herein) were present outside who forcibly took her to Gujranwala in a wagon. Shabbir had been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her. On 5‑10‑1986 they were taking her to Nangal Buchcher but they were detected by her parents who were present at the bus‑stand, upon which they left her and fled away.

According to her, the motive for offence was that her elder sister was betrothed with Shabbir Ahmad co‑accused but her father later on refused to give her in marriage to him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner and the F. I. R. version regarding abduction is at variance with the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of Mst. Shahnaz Begum, therefore, his case needs further inquiry. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. A certified copy of statement of Mst. Shahnaz under section 164 Cr.P.C. has been placed on the file. It does not contain any allegation of Zina against the petitioner. According to the F.I.R., four persons, including the petitioner, stayed for the night at the house of Muhammad Akram and left the house during night alongwith Mst. Shahnaz Begum. Mst. Shahnaz Begum, on the other hand, stated that she was taken away from her house by Mst. Seman at 6 or 7 p.m. and the petitioner and his co‑accused Shabbir Ahmad who were present outside, forcibly took her in a wagon. Thus, the allegation of abduction as contained in the F.I.R. is materially different from what was stated by Mst. Shahnaz Begum. In the circumstances, a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Sadar.

S. A./A‑17/L Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.