Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAEEM VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Farrukh MahmudCh. Muhammad Arshad Mohandra,THE STATE,Iqbal Hussain Khakwani
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 1255
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
MUHAMMAD NAEEM---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1153/B of 2002, decided on 28th November, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16---Bail, grant of---Matter was reported to the Police after the delay of eight days ---F.I.R. revealed that alleged abductees had developed intimacy with accused and his co-accused---Alleged abductees were not found in the custody of accused at the time of his arrest and were still at large---Offence under S.16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, did not attract prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail could not be withheld as punishment and no one could be confined in jail for unlimited time---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Arshad Mohandra for Petitioner.
Iqbal Hussain Khakwani for the State.
Date of hearing: 28th November, 2002.
ORDER
Muhammad Naeem son of Muhammad Sarwar, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.319 registered at Police Station Khanpur, District Rahim Yar Khan, on 11-8-2002 for offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Briefly the fact as narrated in the F.I.R. are that the complainant Noor Muhammad alongwith with his wife Mst. Maqboolan Bibi and Abdul Ghafoor alongwith his wife Mst. Hasina Mai lived in the same Ihata. Muhammad Nadeem and Muhammad Naeem accused started visiting the house of the complainant and developed intimacy with the wives of the complainant and Abdul Ghafoor. They were stopped from visiting the house. However, they continued with their love affair. On 3-8-2002 when the complainant and Abdul Ghafoor returned their house, they found that Mst. Maqboolan Bibi and Mst. Hasina Mai were missing.
During search P.Ws. informed the complainant that they were seen in the company of the petitioner and other accused. The accused were contacted by the complainant, who promised to return the abductees but since the accused did not fulfill their promise, the matter was reported to the police.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 18-8-2002 and after completion of investigation is in judicial lock-up.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the matter was reported to the police after the delay of eight days. It was admitted in the F.I.R. that the alleged abductees had developed intimacy with the petitioner and co- accused Muhammad Nadeem. At the time of the arrest of petitioner, the abductees were not found in his company. The abductees are still at large. The offence under section 16 of the Ordinance does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Bail cannot be withheld as punishment, and no one can be confined in Jail for unlimited time therefore, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand, with the one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1883/L Bail granted.