Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HANIF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Muhammad Nawaz BhattiSaghir Ahmad Bhatti,Shahid Iqbal
2007 M L D 486
2007 M L D 486
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J
MUHAMMAD HANIF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 450-B of 2006, decided on 22nd March, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10(2) & 16---Bail, grant of---Accused was behind the bars, investigation in the case was complete, challan had been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction and accused was no more required by the police for the purpose of further inquiry---No useful purpose would be served to put accused behind the bars for an indefinite period---Alleged abductee in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, had deposed that she was not abducted by any one and F.I.Rs. were lodged by her father/complainant with mala fide intention and that despite his undertaking, her father/complainant did not allow her to accompany her accused husband---Co-accused having been granted bail, under the rule of consistency, accused also deserved 'for concession of bail---Accused was allowed bail.
Saghir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Shahid Iqbal for the State.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.315 of 2004, dated 9-8-2004 registered under section 10(2)/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Luddan, District, Vehari.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he abducted Mst. Nooran Bibi daughter of the complainant along with the other co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the F.I.R. and story of the same is concocted one; that the petitioner is behind the bars for; that co-accused namely Muhammad Altaf has already been granted bail and the petitioner under the rule of consistency also deserves for the concession of bail. Further submits that investigation is complete and petitioner is not required by the local police for further investigation. That Mst. Nooran Bibi the alleged abductee during her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., dated 30-9-2005 had stated that she was not abducted by any one.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Petitioner is behind the bars. Investigation in the case is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of trial and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of further investigation and no useful purpose would be served to put the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Muhammad Altaf co-accused has already been granted bail and under the rule of consistency the petitioner also deserves for the concession of bail. Further more Mst. Nooran Bibi the alleged abdutee got her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate Ist Class, Khanewal on 30-9-2005, wherein she had categorically deposed that she was not abducted by anyone and F.I.R. No.8 of 2004 and F.I.R. No.315/04 were got lodged by her father complainant with mala fide intention and despite his undertaking her father-complainant did not allow her to accompany her husband-petitioner.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-36/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.