Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALI MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Maulvi Anwar-ul-HaqSaeeda Asif
2010 M L D 363
2010 M L D 363
[Lahore]
Before Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, J
ALI MUHAMMAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2604-B of 2006, decided on 21st September, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss.13/14---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/381-A/337-J/411---Theft---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused and his co-accused were named in a supplementary statement recorded seven months after the registration of F.I.R.---Co-accused had been granted bail---Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was granted bail, in circumstances.
Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95 ref.
Saeeda Asif for Petitioner.
Faheem Mumtaz for the State.
Malik Muhammad Saleem for the Complainant.
ORDER
MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.---The petitioner was arrested on 30-6-2003 in case F.I.R. No.134, dated 9-8-2003 under sections 13/14 of (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 380/381-A//337-J/411, 'P.P.C. at Police Station Kot Mubarak, District Dera Ghazi Khan. His bail application has been rejected by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, on 31-7-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that her client is not nominated in the F.I.R. He was named along with one Esa in a supplementary statement recorded several months after the registration of the said F.I.R. whereas the said Esa has been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 15-7-2004 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1938-B of 2004. According to her, he was abroad to work for gain and surrendered himself immediately after his return. She further contends that Mst. Zainab has filed a suit for jactitation against the complainant which is pending. Learned counsel for the complainant assisting the learned counsel for the State contends that the role attributed to the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Esa as he had made the travelling arrangements for Mst. Zainab to travel abroad: According to this Mst. Zainab as well as Mahmood were placed behind the bars by the Saudi Government and then deported.
3. I have gone through the available records. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the complainant married Zainab 3/4 months ago whereas he was already married with Ruqia who bore him five children. His brother-in-law Ghulam Hassan was not happy and had gone to Saudi Arabia. He returned two months ago. On 8-8-2003 Mst. Zainab administered some intoxicant to the members of the family. He got up at 5-00 a.m. and found Mst. Zianab absent. On his hue and cry, the persons mentioned in the F.I.R. arrived and he found the cash and several articles mentioned in the F.I.R. missing. He expressed suspicion on Farid, Mir Khan, Abdul Karim, Muhammad Ibrahim and Bilal.
4. He named the petitioner and Esa in a supplementary statement recorded seven months after the said F.I.R. Esa had been granted bail by the Court as stated above.
5. Now to my mind apart from the fact that the bail is being prayed for on the same grounds on which it was granted to Esa, the learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me a copy of the plaint in the jactitation suit and stated at the bar that she has filed the family suit on behalf of Mst. Zainab and it is pending. This being so, on the analogy of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95, this is certainly a case of further inquiry. The Criminal Miscellaneous is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A-330/L Bail granted.