Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNIR AHMAD VS Respondent: STATE
2000 M L D 374
2000 M L D 374
[Lahore]
Before Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J
MUNIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.908‑B of 1998, decided on 28th May, 1998
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.420/468/471/494/495‑‑ Bail‑‑Abductee had denied the Nikahnama showing her marriage with her husband‑‑‑Both the Nikhnamas showing the marriage of abductee with the accused as well as with her husband, according to the report of Finger Print Bureau, bore her signatures‑‑‑Case of accused, thus, needed further inquiry ‑‑‑Co‑accused had already been released on bail‑‑‑Investigation in the case being complete, nothing was to be recovered from the accused‑‑‑Bail was granted to accused in circumstances.
Altaf Ibarhim Qureshi for Petitioner Jamil Ahmad Chohan for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No.142 of 1997, dated 17‑7‑1997 for offence under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 read with sections 420/ 468/471/494 and 495, P.P.C. registered at' Police Station Fateh Sher, District Shahiwal.
2. The complainant Zulfiqar Ali has alleged in the F:I.R. that the petitioner (Munir Ahmad) and other accused persons came to his house and forcibly abducted Mst. Asia Perveen; put her in a wagon and carried her away and that Asia Perveen was married with Khalid Pervaiz on 29‑11‑1996 and that Munir Ahmad prepared a bogus Nikahnama of Mst. Asia Perveen.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by learned Session Judge, Sahiwal vide order, dated 27‑4‑1998.
4. The petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that he is innocent and has committed no offence and that the co‑accused of the petitioner has been granted bail, hence under the consistency of law, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail and that there is delay of 3/4 months in lodging the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation and that Mst. Asia being of (sic) age contrasted marriage with the petitioner according to the law and Sharia and that the Nikah of the petitioners with Asia is correct while the Nikah with Khalid Pervaiz is bogus and fabricated and that Mst. Asia has also filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against Khalid Pervaiz and that after completion of the investigation, the petitioner is no more required by the Police.
5. The petition is opposed on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and that Nikah with Khalid Pervaiz was conducted on 29‑11‑1996 as such in the presence of Nikahnama second Nikah could not be conducted and both the Nikahnamas were sent for verification of the signature and according to report of the Finger Print Bureau, both the Nikahnamas bear the signature of Asia Perveen and that the offence is hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. as the sentence is stoning to death.
6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides and have gone through the record.
7. The factum of denial of Nikahnama of Mst. Asia Perveen with Khalid Pervaiz, the investigation being complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and the opinion of the Finger Print Bureu that on both the Nikahnamas the signatures are that of Mst. Asia Perveen makes the petitioner's case one of further inquiry and also on the rule of consistency as the co‑accused have been granted bail, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
N.H.Q./M‑1094/L
Bail granted.