Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Fazal-e-Miran ChauhanMian Fazal Rauf Joya,Ms. Farzana Khan
2007 P Cr
2007 P Cr. L J 1471
[Lahore]
Before Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10271/B of 2006, decided on 6th February, 2007:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- -
---S. 497(2)---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Prosecution version was that only allegation against accused was that he armed with Sota, was present at the spot, whereas, there was no such allegation of committing sodomy with the victim---Provisions of S.12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with S.377, P.P.C. did not attract to the facts and circumstances of the case, which had made case of accused one of further inquiry---Guilt or innocence of accused would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence---Accused was in captivity since his arrest---Challan had been submitted in the court, but no progress had taken place---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner.
Ms. Farzana Khan, Assistant Prosecutor-General for the State.
Abdullah S.-I. Police Station City Arifwgla with record.
ORDER
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J,--- Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan, seek post-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.223, dated 24-5-2006, offence under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. for the allegation of committing sodomy with Muhammad Naeem, nephew of the complainant, hence, this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that; the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant due to party faction. There is inordinate delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained and casts doubt on the prosecution story. As per contents of F.I.R., there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing sodomy with the victim, as the petitioner was present at the spot while Armed with Sota, which makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. Further states that; the petitioner is incarceration since his arrest and is no more required by the police for any further investigation. Challan has been submitted in the Court on 16-10-2006 but no progress has taken place so far, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail petition.
4. Having given the anxious considerations to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it reveals that; as per prosecution version, there is only allegation against the petitioner that he armed with Sota, was present at the spot, whereas, there is no such allegation of committing sodomy with the victim. The provisions of section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. do not attract to the facts and circumstances of the case and makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. The guilt or innocence of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording, evidence. The petitioner is in captivity since his arrest; challan has been submitted in the Court but no progress has taken place so far.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only)' with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H. B T. /M-300/L Bail granted.