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. 190 of 1987, decided on 10th February, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Statement of prosecutrix under S. 164, Cr.P.C. though indicating that the case was of elopement yet such fact, per se would not constitute any ground for bail as allegation against petitioner was that of Zina which fell within the prohibitory clause‑‑Bail declined in circumstances.
Naweed Shahryar for Petitioner.
Muhammad Shah Nawaz for the State.
Date of hearing: 10th February, 1987.
Salamat Ali petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The F.I.R. version is that on 30‑4‑1986 the petitioner, his brother Liaqat Ali and his sister Mst. Sarwari abducted Mst. Samara Naheed daughter of Muhammad Younas complainant.
Mst. Samara Naheed made a statement under section 164, Cr. P.C. wherein she stated that Salamat Ali threatened her with a knife at Ghausia Chauk, Allama Iqbal Colony and made her to sit in a rickshaw while Liaqat Ali and Mst. Sarwari returned back. He took her to Dera Ghazi Khan and kept her there for eight days. Then she was taken to Quetta and Loralai where Salamat Ali petitioner had committed Zina with her. She was cross examined by the petitioner. In cross‑examination, she admitted that she did not raise any alarm in the train or the buses or at the places where she had been staying.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of elopement and one of the witnesses of abduction, namely, Riaz, has worn affidavit exonerating the petitioner.
4. Statement of Mst. Samara Naheed under section 164, Cr.P.C. does indicate that it was a case of elopement but this fact per se would not constitute any ground for the grant of bail. There is an allegation of Zina against the petitioner. It is not his case that the alleged abductee had contracted marriage with him. She was cross‑examined at length but no such question was put to her. The offence of Zina falls within the prohibitory clause. In the circumstances, no ground for bail is made out and this petition is dismissed.
S.G.D./S‑29/L Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer