Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ alias RIAZ VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sh. Javaid SarfrazNemo
2007 Y L R 2670
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J
MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ alias RIAZ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3019-B of 2006, decided on 3rd-July 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Accused was duly nominated in the F.LR.---Allegation against accused was that he along with co-accused had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with victim girl---Medical report had shown that victim was subjected to zina---Accused, earlier was found involved in such like cases and be was convicted---Accused had committed same offence again, which 'was a heinous crime---Prima facie, accused appeared to be involved in the-case and mala fide on the part of prosecution had not been established by accused---Grounds for grant of pre-arrest bail were different from those of after arrest---Offence against accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---No case for pre-arrest bail having been made out by accused, he did not deserve any discretionary relief from High Court.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Saeed Iqbal Gujjar for the Complainant.
Muhammad Akram Minhas for the State.
ORDER
SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---On the last date of hearing i.e. 29-6-2006, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed his arguments in support of his petition for pre-arrest bail and the petition was adjourned for today i.e. 3-7-2006 for the arguments of the learned counsel for the State and the complainant. However, today, the petitioner has not entered appearance. Nevertheless this petition for pre-arrest bail is being disposed of on merits.
2. The petitioner, Muhammad Sarfraz alias Riaz seeks pre-arrest. bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.121 of 2006 dated 17-3-2006, under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, registered at Police . Station Saddar, Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent; that no such occurrence had ever taken place, that the father of the alleged victim had earlier made an application, in which similar allegations were levelled against the present petitioner but those allegations were found to be untrue and he withdrew the application .and that the respectables of the locality had shown affidavits to the effect that no such occurrence had taken place.
4. Learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the complainant had moved an application before the learned ex officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, for the registration of case, which was withdrawn as he was assured that the case would be registered against the present petitioner; that the petitioner is duly nominated in the F.I.R.; that specific role had been attributed to him and that previously also a case of similar offence had been registered against him.
5. Arguments heard Record perused.
6. The petitioner is duly nominated in the F.LR. The allegation against him is that he along with his co-accused Yasin committed Zina-bil-Jabs with Mst. Gulzaran Bibi, the victim, who was medically examined and the medical report duly shown that she was subjected to Zina. In 1998, case bearing F.I.R. No.949 of 1998, under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII. of 1979 was registered at Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan, against the present petitioner in which he was convicted. The petitioner is alleged to have committed same offence again, which is a heinous crime. Statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of Muhammad Rafiq son of Rustam Ali and Shakeel son of Abdul Majid have been recorded acid they have supported the prosecution version. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had earlier withdrawn his application for registration of case is misconceived. In fact the complainant had moved an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned ex officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala, District Pakpattan, for the registration of case. However, when he was informed that the case was being registered, then he withdrew his application and consequently F.I.R. was registered against the present petitioner on 17-3-2006. Prima facie, the petitioner appears to be involved in this case and mala fide on the part of prosecution had not been established by him. Grounds for grant of pre-arrest bail are different to that of after arrest. The .offence falls within the prohibitory clause. No case for pre-arrest bail has been made out by the petitioners, who does not deserve any discretionary relief from this Court.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition in dismissed.
H.B.T./M-415/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.