Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL MAJEED VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainMian Qamar ud Din Safeer,Ishfaq Ahmad Malik
2010 Y L R 560
2010 Y L R 560
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
ABDUL MAJEED---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3157-B of 2009, decided on 13th October, 2009.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/11---Abduction and Zina-bil Jabr---Bail, grant of---F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about nine months---Abductee in the F.I.R. had alleged her forcible abduction and commission of Zina-bil-jabr by the accused, but in her suit for dissolution of marriage filed against him, she had herself admitted to have entered into valid Nikah with him with her free consent, which had been decreed ex parse---Both these situations were irreconcilable and liability of accused for the alleged offence was a matter of further inquiry covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C---Benefit of such doubt had to be given to accused even at bail stage---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Bail---Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of every doubt, even at bail stage, is given to accused.
Mian Qamar ud Din Safeer for Petitioner.
Ishfaq Ahmad Malik, D.P.-G. for Respondent No.1.
Muhammad Saleem, S.-I. with Police Record.
ORDER
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Abdul Majeed through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 293 registered under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 with Police Station Karam Pur, District Vehari on 7-10-2006.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on 22-1-2006 at about 3-00 p.m., Abdul Majeed armed with rifle, Abdul Latif with pistol, Muneer Ahmed with pistol and Mst. Nagina Bibi empty handed had forcibly abducted complainant Mst. Shamim Akhtar and they took her to Faisalabad in a car and there Abdul Majeed had been committing Zina with her and the remaining guarded them and during the same they had also obtained her thumb-impressions forcibly on some papers on fire-arm point and thereafter Abdul Majeed and Muneer Ahmed took her to Islamabad where she had an escape and took refuge in a Crises Centre there.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that there is delay of about nine months in lodging the F.I.R. I would not comment on this aspect of the matter anymore as it would prejudice either of the party at any subsequent stage in the case. It is, however, reflected from the F.I.R. that she has alleged her forcible abduction at the hands of the accused nominated therein and Zina Bil Jabr with her against him (petitioner). This is but surprising that she had brought suit for dissolution of marriage against him before Family Court at Mianchannu on 24-11-2007 as is evident from the copy of the plaint in such suit annexed to the petition. Para No.1 of the same is interesting to be noted here in verbatim.
4. This shows that she has averred therein that she had married him with her free-will on 14-2-2006. I fail to understand that she despite this has alleged her forcible abduction at his and others hands. The two situations, thus, are irreconcilable.
5. Another more interesting aspect of the matter is that her said suit was decreed ex parte on 14-2-2008 by the learned Judge Family Court, Mianchannu. She had also filed suit for dower against him on 10-3-2006. In Para No.1 of the plaint in that suit, she again has reiterated that her Nikah was performed with him on 14-2-2006 and it was in lieu of dower Rs.1,00,000.
6. This position certainly leaves room to entertain doubt qua the veracity of the allegation of her forcible abduction by him and others as contained in the F.I.R. It may be mentioned here that benefit of every doubt, at bail stage is given to accused.
7. Thus, in view of the above position that she in her said suit herself has admitted to have entered into valid Nikah with him with her free consent and the same was decreed ex parte, it is yet to be determined that if he ultimately can be held liable for the alleged offence. His case, thus, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars.
8. In this view of the matter, I accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction the learned Trial Court.
9. It is, however, clarified here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.
N.H.Q./A-320/L Bail allowed.