Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKBAR VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainMushtaq Ahmad Chaudhary,Ch. Pervaiz Aftab,Javed Iqbal
2003 Y L R 2363
2003 Y L R 2363
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
MUHAMMAD AKBAR---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.2613/B and 2614/B of 2002, decided on 24th October, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16-- Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused persons were not named in FI.R. and their names had figured in supplementary statements of complainant and prosecution witness which were made about one month and nine days after the alleged incident-- Alleged abductee had negated the version of the complainant as contained in the F.LR. and she had owned her Nikah with co accused and not with the other as mentioned in F.LR.---Nothing had been recovered from the accused and alleged abductee was not recovered from them, but was produced by someone else---No allegation of Zina was levelled against the accused persons---All such facts had rendered the case of accused essentially as one of further inquiry which was covered under S. 497(2), Cr. P. C. -- Accused were behind the bars and were not previous convicts---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhary for Petitioner.
Muhammad Akbar (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2613-B of 2002) and Nazar Hussain (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2614-B of 2002).
Javed Iqbal for the State.
Ch. Pervaiz Aftab for the Complainant.
ORDER
Muhammad Akbar and Nazar Hussain, both the petitioners have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 17, dated 1-2-2002 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Saddar, Shujabad, District Multan. Later on, the police have added section 10 of the aforesaid Ordinance in the same.
2. These are being disposed by this single order as have arisen out of one and the same case.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 29-1-2002 at about 7-30 p.m. Shafqat armed with .30 bore pistol, Muhammad Asghar with Rifle, Fida Hussain with pistol .30 bore and Perveen Bibi came to the house of the complainant's daughter Mst. Shabana Bibi. They both were sitting there. They forcibly took away Mst. Shabana Bibi in a car for the purpose of Zina with her.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in that they are not named in the F.I.R.; that name of the petitioners have figured for the first time in the supplementary statement dated 7-3-2002 of the complainant and Abid Hussain P.W. that Mst. Shabana Bibi has been arrayed as an accused in this case being consenting party to Zina; that she has owned that she has married her co-accused Shafqat Hussain on 10-10-2002; that she was produced before the police by one Nasir and was not recovered from anyone, that nothing was recovered from i, them despite the fact that they had remained with the police on physical remand; that there is no allegation of Zina against them; that they are behind the bars for the last about 2 and half months; and that they are previous non-convicts.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petitions on the grounds that they and their co-accused Shafqat Hussain and Shabana Bibi had been seen moving together.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of record.
7. The petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. Admittedly their names had figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant and Abid Hussain P.W. on 7-3-2002. It thus was about one month and nine days after the alleged incident. Furthermore, Mst. Shabana Bibi has negates the version of the complainant as contained in the F.I.R. and she has owned her Nikah with Shafqat Hussain co-accused and not with Muhammad Asghar as mentioned in the F. I. R. Admittedly nothing has been recovered from them. Mst. Shabana Bibi was produced by one Nasir. She was not recovered from anyone.
8. There is also no allegation of Zina against them. All these facts render their case essentially as one of further inquiry. Hence, the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convicts.
9. In these circumstances, I accept this petition as well as Criminal Miscellaneous No.2614-B of 2002. The petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the I like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1671/L Bail granted.