Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Rustam Ali MalikRana Muhammad Arif,Mian Saeed-ud-Din Ahmad
2002 Y L R 694
2002 Y L R 694
[Lahore]
Before Rustam Ali Malik, J
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1811‑B of 2002, decided on 3rd May, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 13, 14 & 18‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation against the accused was that of hiring the woman co- accused for purpose of Zina on payment of Rs.1,000‑‑‑Prosecution had no evidence that the accused had actually hired the woman co -accused for illicit purpose‑‑‑Case of the accused called for further inquiry inasmuch as the amount of Rs.1, 000 allegedly paid had not been recovered from either of the two women co‑accused‑‑‑Accused granted bail in the circumstances.
Rana Muhammad Arif for Petitioner.
Mian Saeed‑ud‑Din Ahmad for the State.
ORDER
This application for post‑arrest bail has been filed on behalf of Muhammad Arshad petitioner who is involved in case F.I.R. No.146 of 2001 dated 14‑12‑2002 under sections 13/14/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 at Police Station City Nankana Sahib, District, Sheikhupura.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by Nazar Hussain, A.S.I. According to the F.I.R., on receipt of a secret information, a raid was conducted by a police party on the Baithak of one Mst. Sakina Bibi and it had apprehended a boy and a girl while attempting to commit Zina. Their names were subsequently disclosed as Muhammad Arshad and Mst. Seema alias Naheed. Mst. Sakina Bibi, however, managed to escape from the spot. Muhammad Arshad aforesaid disclosed before the police party that he had hired the aforesaid girl, namely Mst. Seema alias Naheed from Mst. Sakina Bibi for illicit purpose on payment of Rs.1,000. It was alleged that Mst. Sakina Bibi had let to the hire Mst. Seema alias Naheed to Muhammad Arshad for the purpose of Zina and hence the case.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused. It seems that the amount of Rs.1,000 had not been recovered from Mst. Sakina Bibi who is said to have escaped from the spot. The allegation against the present petitioner is that the hiring Mst. Seema alias Naheed for the purpose of Zina. However, there does not seem to be any evidence with the prosecution that he had actually hired her for illicit purpose. On the face of it, it appears to be a case of further inquiry to the extent of the petitioner. As mentioned above the amount of Rs.1,000 had not been recovered either from Mst. Seems alias Naheed or from Mst. Sakina Bibi. It has been stated that the investigation is already complete and the challan has been submitted in the Court and that the petitioner has been in the Judicial lock‑up for the last about 4 months. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in the Judicial lock up for an indefinite period. Under these circumstances, he is entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
S.M.A/M‑1405/L Bail allowed.