Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KAMAL KHAN VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 609
[Lahore]
Before Khizar Hayat, J
KAMAL KHAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19/B of 1987, decided on 21st January, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Both parties relying on registered Nikahnamas‑‑Suit for jactitation against complainant pending in Court‑‑Accused in jail for last 8 months without trial‑‑All co‑accused already on bail‑‑Bail granted to accused in circumstances.
Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner. Iftikhar Fakhar for the State.
ORDER
This is a petition for the grant of bail moved on behalf of Kamal Khan who stands arrested in a case (F.I.R. No. 102, dated 3‑3‑1986) under sections 10 and 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Dajal, District Rajanpur.
2. Muhammad Shafi reported at the police station on 3‑3‑1986 that 4/5 days ago when he returned home after irrigating his land he found his wife Mst. Hasina missing. The womenfolk of his family told him that she had been taken away by Kamal Khan, petitioner, with connivance of other accused due to his illicit connection with ner. As the accused party promised in a Punchayat to restore his wife to him, therefore, he did not lodge the report promptly. During investigation Mst. Hasina was recovered from the house of Kamal Khan, petitioner, on 25‑6‑1986 and was arrested as accused in the case.
According to the complainant, he married Mat. Hasina in November, 1982 while Kamal Khan, petitioner, claimed that Mst. Hasina contracted marriage with him of her own fee will on 5‑4‑1986 and that he as well as Mst. Hasina by living as husband and wife had committed no offence. It may be mentioned that Mst. Hasina supports the petitioner and she has also filed a suit for jactitation of alleged marriage with the complainant. It may be stated that Mst. Hasina has since been allowed bail in the case but the same privilege has been denied to the petitioner, hence this application.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also perused the record.
5. The petitioner is in jail for the last 8 months without trial. Both the parties relied on registered Nakahnamas. The suit for jactitation of marriage filed by Mst. Hasina against the complainant is pending decision. All the co‑accused of the petitioner named in the F.I.R. have also been allowed bail. In the circumstances I find that petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail because of question whether Mst. Hasina is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner or that of the complainant is yet to be determined which would materially affect result of this case. Kamal Khan petitioner, is therefore, directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail-bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C. /Duty Magistrate, Rajanpur.
S . A . l K‑64/ L Bail granted.