Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASGHAR VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 684
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11429/B of 1987, decided on 23rd December, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No allegation of Zina existing against accused‑‑Victim girl, in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. falsified allegation of abduction against accused‑‑Bail granted.
Muhammad Aslam v. State P L D 1987 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 39 and Abdul Shakoor v. State P L D 1987 Lah. 225 ref.
Asghar Ali and Malik Rehmat Khan Awan for Petitioner. Shah Nawaz Khan for the State. M.S. Shad for the Complainant.
ORDER
This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Asghar petitioner in case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Huddood) Ordinance 1979, registered at P.S. Northern Cantt. vide F.I.R. No. 353/87 dated 12‑10‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 5 others abducted Mst. Kalsoom and thereafter Muhammad Ameen had been committing Zina with Mst. Kalsoon with her consent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no allegations of Zina against the petitioner; that Mst. Kalsoom after having been recovered by the police was produced before the Magistrate where in she stated that she was not abducted by anyone and had married to Muhammad Ameen with her consent; that in view of the statement made by her, the Magistrate allowed her to go and live with Muhammad Ameen. Conversely the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed this application on the ground that there is ample evidence to show that the petitioner and others had in fact abducted Mst. Kalsoom; that Mst. Kalsoom is aged 13/14 years, therefore, she is a minor and the consent given by her if any is immaterial, that the petitioner and other prepared false Nikahnama of Mst. Kalsoom, on 26‑9‑1987 whereas Ameen was in jail on that date and he was released from the jail on 28‑9‑1987; that the co‑accused are absconder; that the petitioner is hardened criminal and in case he is released, there is possibility of the repetition of the crime. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Aslam v. State reported as PLD 1987 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 39 and Abdul Shakoor v. State PLD 1987 Lah. 225.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that there are no allegation of Zina; that in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Mst. Kalsoom falsified the allegations of her abduction by the petitioner and others and commission of Zina by Muhammad Ameen with her; that she was allowed by the Magistrate to go and live with Muhammad Ameen that Mst. Kalsoom having been made an accused in the case, there is no direct evidence of commission of Zina with her; that the case‑law relied on by the 'learned counsel for the complainant is quite distinguishable.
For what has been said above, without making expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I feel that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C. /Duty Magistrate, Lahore.
M.Y.H./M‑500/L Bail granted.