Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUBARIK ALI ALIAS MAKHA VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 919
[Lahore]
Before Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J
MUBARIK ALI alias MAKHA‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 91/B of. 1988, decided on 27th January, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 452‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner not named in F.I.R., but was involved for the first time in statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.‑‑Neither there was allegation of rape against him nor he was directly involved in abduction‑‑Bail was granted in circumstances.
Asghar Ali Chaudhry for Petitioner.
A.H. Maqsood for the State.
Date of hearing: 27th January, 1988.
ORDER
This is a petition for bail on behalf of Mubarak Ali alias Makha who alongwith others is being prosecuted in a case under section 452, P.P.C. and sections 10/11 Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. The prosecution case is that in between the night of 17th and, 18th June, 1987, Zulfiqar Ali forcibly abducted Mst. Naseem Akhtar, a daughter of Muhammad Rafiq complainant with the assistance of Muhammad Ic]bal etc. accused. She was then lodged in the house of Mubarak Ali petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mubarak Ali petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. He was, for the first time, involved by Mst. Naseem Akhtar abductee in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. dated 21‑7‑1987. There is no allegation of rape against Mubarak Ali. He was not directly involved in the abduction. I, therefore, admit Mubarak Ali petitioner to bail on his furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees 'twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./Duty Magistrate, Sialkot.
H.B.T./M‑567/L Bail granted.