Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ASHIQ ALI VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice M. Bilal KhanCh. Abdus Saleem,Qazi Zafar Iqbal,Qazi Zafar Iqbal
2005 P Cr
2005 P Cr. L J 516
[Lahore]
Before M. Bilal Khan, J
ASHIQ ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. 6934/B of 2003 decided on 11th February, 2004.
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‑‑‑Delay of more than five months in lodging F.I.R. had not satisfactorily been explained‑‑‑Alleged abductee in her statement made under S.161, Cr.P.C. had not levelled any allegation of Zina or abduction against accused and she had simply stated that she was administered some intoxicant whereafter she became unconscious‑‑‑Case of accused appeared to be on a better footing than that of his co‑accused who had since been extended concession of bail‑‑‑In view of said peculiar facts and circumstances, case of accused appeared to be one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Ch. Abdus Saleem for Petitioner.
Qazi Zafar Iqbal for the State.
ORDER
Ashiq Ali son of Muhammad Ali, seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 106 of 2003 registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, at Police Station City Toba Tek Singh on 18‑4‑2003.
2. The complainant Master Muhammad Manzoor Ahmad who lodged the instant F.I.R., stated therein that he had contracted a second marriage with Mst. Hussan Bano the alleged abductee; that on 17‑11‑2002 at 9‑00 a.m. when he returned back home the said abductee was not present in his house; that on enquiry he was told that the petitioner along with five others had taken away Mst. Hussan Bano on the pretext that her guest had come at the house of one Razia; that Hussan Bano did not return home that he kept on searching her and ultimately was told by the witnesses that they had seen Hussan Bano being taken to the house of Mst. Razia by the petitioner and others that later on he learnt that his wife had been abducted and the ornaments which she was wearing had also been taken away; that the accused person confessed their guilt before him and promised to return the abductee but they failed to do so. Hence the instant case was registered.
3. The petitioner who was arrested on 11‑6‑2003 applied for his post‑arrest bail which was turned down by a learned Additional Sessions Judge; at Toba Tek Singh vide his order, dated 13‑9‑2003. Hence this bail application.
4. Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for bail has argued that there is delay of more than five months in lodging the F.I.R. and that no explanation for the said delay is forthcoming; that after recovery the abductee has made statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein she has levelled no allegation of Zina or abduction against the present petitioner; that co‑accused of the petitioner namely Munir Ahmad alias Toti with almost identical role has since been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge at Toba Tek Singh vide his order, dated 8‑8‑2003; that principle of consistency demands that the petitioner be also extended the same concession; that there is no convincing material available with the prosecution which could saddle the petitioner with the criminal responsibility; that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner's case becomes one of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. According to him the offence charged with attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that there is convincing material available against the petitioner connecting him with the commission of offence.
6. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. There is a delay of more than five months in lodging the F.I.R. and that the reasons advanced by the complainant for the said delay prima facie are not very convincing. The learned counsel for the State has read out the statement of the abductee recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. According to the said statement apart from the allegation that the abductee was administered some intoxicant, whereafter she became unconscious, there is no other allegation of abduction or Zina against the A petitioner and his case appears to be on a better footing than that of his co-accused Munir Ahmad alias Toti who has since been extended the concession of bail.
8. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner appears to be one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Accordingly this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A‑303/L Bail granted.