Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainCh. Muhammad Anwar-ul-Haq,Nishat Ahmad Siddiqui,Sh. Arshad Ali
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 1968
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1279/B of 2003, decided on 30th June, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/16‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/468/471‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he had witnessed Nikah solemnized between alleged abductee who was wife of complainant and co‑accused‑‑‑Report submitted against accused, co accused, alleged abductee and another, had shown that alleged abductee was arrayed as an accused in the case ‑‑‑F.I.R. also showed that during investigation, it had been found that accused had no connection with enticement or taking away of alleged abductee or of Zina with her‑‑ F.I.R. revealed further that accused was simply a witness of Nikah of co accused with alleged abductee‑‑‑Accused with his application for bail had filed certified copy of suit for jactitation of marriage brought by alleged abductee against complainant and according to the same complainant had divorced the alleged abductee in writing and thereafter she had entered into a valid Nikah with co‑accused‑‑‑Said suit was pending adjudication before Family Court‑‑‑Question of subsistence or otherwise of marriage of alleged abductee with complainant was still to be determined‑-‑Case against accused, in circumstance, fell within purview of further inquiry as envisaged by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was stated to be previous non‑convict and. was entitled to bail, in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar‑ul‑Haq for Petitioner.
Sh. Arshad Ali for the State.
Nishat Ahmad Siddiqui for the Complainant
ORDER
Muhammad Ibrahim, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for after‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.60, dated 17‑3‑2003 under section, 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 read with sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Sanawan District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the allegation against him is that he has witnessed the Nikah solemnised between Mst. Shahnaz Mai the wife of the complainant and one Muhammad Bilal.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in that there is absolutely no evidence against him of enticement or taking away of Mst. Shahnaz Mai or Zina with her; that she had been divorced by Ghulam Shabbir complainant and thereafter she had entered into Nikah with co‑accused Muhammad Bilal; that she had conceived from Muhammad Bilal and given birth to a child namely Muhammad Sheraz that Ghulam Shabbir complainant is still claiming her to be his wife and that is why she had filed suit for jactitation of marriage against him and the same is pending adjudication before the competent Family Court and some verdict regarding existence or otherwise of marriage with him is to be returned that in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. prepared by the police, it has been mentioned that neither any evidence of enticement or taking away of Mst. Shahnaz Mai nor Zina with her is available against him and he simply was witness of Nikah between her and Muhammad Bilal and hence the case against him certainly needs further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars non‑convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he has helped his co‑accused Muhammad Bilal in the enticement of Mst. Shahnaz Mai, the wife of the complainant and then became witness to the Nikah between them which is invalid in view of subsistence of her marriage with complainant Ghulam Shabbir; and that the D.S.P., Muzaffargarh in his investigation has clearly opined that he is involved in the matter.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me the copy of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted in the case against him, Muhammad Bilal, Mst. Shahnaz Mai and one Naseer Ahmad. The same shows that she (Mst. Shahnaz Mai) has been arrayed as an accused in the case.
7. It has also been mentioned therein that during the investigation; it has been found that neither he has any connection with the enticement or taking away of Mst. Shahnaz Mai or of Zina with her. According to the same, he simply was witness of the Nikah of the co‑accused Muhammad Bilal with her (Shahnaz Mai). There is with the petition, the certified copy of suit for jactitation of marriage brought by her against complainant (Ghulam Shabbir) and said Muhammad Bilal. According to the same, Ghulam Shabbir (complainant) had divorced her in writing on 19‑7‑2001 and thereafter she had entered valid Nikah with Muhammad Bilal on 5‑11‑2001.
8. Admittedly, the said suit is pending adjudication before the competent Family Court. The question of subsistence or otherwise of her marriage with the complainant is still to be determined. Hence, the case against him certainly falls within the purview of further‑inquiry as envisaged by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. He is stated to be behind the bars and previous non‑convict.
10. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-2025/L Bail granted.