Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1502‑B of 1986 decided on 27th October, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Bail to co‑accused not challenged and case of petitioners identical with said co‑accused‑ Cancellation of petitioner's bail declined, in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Petitioners not named in F.I.R. and for the first time named as accused by abductee in her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.‑‑Only allegation against petitioners being that of allowing abductor and abductee to stay in their house for some time but no evidence on record to show that petitioners knew that girl was an abductee or a minor‑‑Cancellation of bail refused, in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner not named in F.I.R. and for the first time named as accused by abductee in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.‑‑Petitioner being held responsible only for allowing abductor and abductee in his house for some time but nothing on record to show that petitioner either knew that she was en abductee or a minor girl‑‑Petitioner allowed bail in circumstances.

Raja Afrasiab Khan for Petitioner.

Ch. Abdul Aziz for the State.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 1986.

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1502‑3 of 1986seeking bail of Muhammad Ishaq accused; Criminal Miscellaneous 1694‑B of 1986 for cancellation of bail against Muhammad Ilyas, Munawar Hussain and Muhammad Arshad accused and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2838‑B of 1986 seeking cancellation of bail of Muhammad Riaz, Rehmat Ullah and Mst. Niaz Pari will be disposed of by this order as they arise out of one F.I.R. No. 84, dated 25‑3‑1986 Police Station Lala Musa District Gujrat under sections 10 and 11, Ordinance VII of 1979.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25‑3‑1986 Walayat Khan complainant closed his furniture shop and came back home at about 6 p. m. Mukhtar accused came there to ask Mst. Monazza Bibi alias Shazia (abductee) that she was being called by Mst. Maqsooda Begum accused. A shortwhile thereafter Mst. Maqsooda Begum came there. She had some talk with Mst. Monazza and then left. It is alleged by the complainant that he alongwith his wife went to enquire about the health of his cousin Nawab and returned home at 10/11 p.m. He found the outer door of his house open. The children were sleeping. However, Mst. Monazza Bibi aged about 12/13 years was absent. He further stated that he alongwith his brother Ghulam Hussain started searching her. They were informed by Muhammad Hussain, Aurangzeb and Munir Ahmad that Mst. Monazza had been taken away by Muhammad Altaf, Mst. Nasreen, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Khan, Mst. Sardaran Begum, Munawar Hussain, Muhammad Younas, Maqsooda Begum, Muhammad Arshad, Mukhtar Ahmad and Tariq accused towards Gujrat. Walayat Khan complainant stated in the F.I. R. that Mst. Shazia while leaving his house also took away Rs.20,000 cash alongwith gold ornaments.

The police after registration of the case on 25‑3‑1986 undertook investigation. Mst. Shazia abductee was recovered on 10‑4‑1986. She was produced before a Magistrate on that very date who recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Besides supporting the story narrated in the F.I.R. she further alleged that Muhammad Altaf accused committed rape on her. He took her away to Taxila and the remaining accused returned to their village. She further stated that she was kept in the house of Rehmat Ullah, Riaz, Niazi Parri and also in the house of Muhammad Ishaq. The police, therefore, challaned the 11 accused mentioned in the F.I.R. and the four accused in whose houses the abductee had allegedly been kept by Muhammad Altaf accused.

Mst. Nasreen, Mst. Sardar Begum, Mst. Maqsooda Beg m were allowed bail being woman. Muhammad Khan, Mukhtar Ahmad and Tariq accused have also been allowed bail. Muhammad IIyas, Munawar Hussain and Muhammad Arshad accused were refused anticipatory bail. However, after about 15 days they were admitted to bail after arrest. The complainant has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1694‑B of 1986 for cancellation of their bail. Riaz, Rehmat Ullah and Niaz Parri accused, in whose house the abductee had been kept by Muhammad Altaf were allowed bail by the lower Court. An application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2838‑B of 1986) has been filed seeking cancellation of their bail.

Out of 11 accused mentioned in the F.I.R. only Muhammad Altaf accused is in lock‑up. He has not applied for bail. Muhammad Ishaq accused in whose house Mat. Shazia has allegedly been kept by Muhammad Altaf is also in lock‑up and has come up to this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2502‑B 1986 for his bail.

3. I have gone through the record of these petitions and have heard the learned counsel .for the parties. Walayat Khan complainant has not challenged the order allowing bail to Muhammad Khan, Mukhtar Ahmad and Tariq accused. The case of Muhammad Ilyas, Munawar Hussain and Arshad accused is identical to their case. It was contended on behalf of the complainant that the lower Court refused bail before arrest to these three accused but without any justification only after about 15 days they were admitted to bail after arrest. It is, therefore, argued that the exercise of discretion in allowing bail to these three accused was not proper. I am not prepared to agree with the learned counsel. As stated above the case of Muhammad Ilyas etc., respondents is identical to that of Muhammad Khan etc. accused and secondly, that the principles for grant of bail before arrest are different than the principles for grant of bail after arrest. On a perusal of the impugned order I find that on merits of this case Muhammad Ilyas etc., respondents were rightly allowed bail by the lower Court. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1694‑B of 1986 is accordingly dismissed.

4. Riaz, Rehmat Ullah and Niaz Parri accused are not mentioned in the F.I. R. They were implicated in this case because of the statement of Mst. Shazia under section 164, Cr.P.C. to the effect that she was kept in their house by Muhammad Altaf accused. There is nothing on record to show that these accused knew that Mst. Shazia was, an abductee or involved in any abduction case. There is also nothing to show that they knew her age. There is no allegation that Riaz or Rehmat Ullah accused committed rape on Shazia abductee. The only allegation against them is that Altaf accused has sated with the abductee for some time in their house. On a perusal of their bail order I find that they were rightly allowed bail by the lower Court. As such Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2838‑B of 1986 is dismissed in limine.

5. The allegation against Muhammad Ishaq accused is that Muhammad Altaf accused alongwith Mst. Shazia abductee had stayed in his house at Lahore. The case of Muhammad Ishaq is identical to that of Rehmat Ullah, Riaz etc., accused. He is not mentioned in the F.I.R. He was for the first time named as an accused by Mst. Shazia in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. There is no allegation that he committed rape on her. There is nothing to show that he knew that Mst. Shazia was minor or that she was an abductee. In view of this I find the case of Muhammad Ishaq to be that of further enquiry. He is admitted to bail on his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one Surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Kharian.

S. A. /M‑54/L Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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