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 Appeal No. 46/B of 1987, decided on 11th February, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. delayed by more than two days‑ Motive appearing to put pressure on accused party for making concessions to uncle of victim who was accused in murder of brother of accused‑ Accused in jail since about five months‑‑Case of further inquiry, having been made out, bail allowed in circumstances.
Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th February, 1987.
Petitioner has been arrested in a case registered at Police Station Alipur Chatha, District Gujranwala, under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979.
2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 19‑9‑1986 at 10 a.m. while the F.I.R. was lodged on 21‑9‑1986 at 2‑30 p.m. According to the F.I.R. the victim who was cutting fodder from his field was overpowered by petitioner who was armed with revolver and accompanied by two others armed with Khanjars. He was fallen down and sodomy was committed on him by each one of them after putting of his Shalwar. The occurrence was witnessed by three persons named in the F.I.R.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. was registered with delay of more than two days is borne out from the record. The other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that a case stood registered against Abdul Sattar, an uncle of the victim, for the murder of brother of the petitioner and he was absconding during the days of occurrence has also not been denied by learned counsel for the State. It is also admitted that he was arrested after the occurrence. In this view of the matter there seems to be some force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that he might have been involved in this case to put pressure on him and his family for making some concessions in favour of the uncle of the victim. He is in jail since about five months. In the circumstances a case of further inquiry appears to have been made out. He is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of A.C., Wazirabad. The observations made in this order about the possibility of involvement of the petitioner on account of earlier murder case shall have no bearing at the time of final decision of the case.
S.A. /M‑143/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