Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Iftikhar Hussain ChaudhrySyed Muhammad Jamil Anwar Shah
2002 Y L R 3958
2002 Y L R 3958
[Lahore]
Before Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, J
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.313‑CB of 2002, decided on 4th April, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.497(5) & 498‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/16‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, cancel lation of‑‑‑Alleged abductee did not support prosecution case‑‑‑Record showed that the alleged abductee had gone of her own free will with accused‑‑‑Accused apparently had not played any role in the incident‑‑‑Trial Court, in circumstances, was justified in allowing pre‑arrest bail to the accused‑‑‑Bail granting order not calling for any interference, application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
Syed Muhammad Jamil Anwar Shah for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 4th April, 2002.
ORDER
Bashir Ahmad and Ghulam Yaseen respondents are accused in case F.I.R. No‑33 of 2002 under sections 10/16 of Ordinance, VII of 1979 registered at Police Station Pacca Laran, Rahimyarkhan.
2. Mst. Naziran wife of the complainant disappeared from his house. According to complainant, witnesses informed him that Mst. Naziran was found boarding a bus with Abdul Hameed and others.
3. Bashir Ahmad and Ghulam Yasin thereafter submitted application for pre‑arrest bail which was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur by order dated 8‑3‑2002.
4. Under consideration petition has been submitted for cancellation of bail allowed to the accused.
5. It was contended that anticipatory bail was an extraordinary concession and could not have been conferred on the respondents as they were duly nominated in the F. I. R.
6. Mst. Naziran did not support the prosecution case. According to record she had gone of her own free‑will with Abdul Hameed. The respondents apparently had not played any role in the incident and Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, was justified in allowing pre‑arrest bail to them. Bail granting order does not call for any interference.
7. Dismissed.
Application for cancellation of bail dismissed.
H.B.T./M‑1507/L