Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM YASIN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Farrukh MahmudCh. Muhammad Siddique Safdar,Tariq Mehmood Qureshi
2002 Y L R 1212
2002 Y L R 1212
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
GHULAM YASIN‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑ Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 444‑B of 2002, decided on 19th March, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10/16‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Alleged abductee had not been recovered and at the time of arrest of accused she was not accompanying him‑‑ Nikahnama placed on record showed that accused was married with the alleged abductee and the Nikahnama was registered one‑‑‑Complainant had also produced a Nikahnama showing alleged abductee to be wife of a person other than the accused, but no evidence had been recorded to ascertain the validity or genuineness of such Nikahnama‑‑‑Matter was reported to police after a delay of four days‑‑‑Allegations against accused needing further probe and inquiry, accused was admitted to bail.
Ch. Muhammad Siddique Safdar for the Petitioner.
Tariq Mehmood Qureshi for the State.
ORDER
Ghulam Yasin petitioner has sought his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.551 of 2000 registered at Police Station Jampur on 29‑12‑2000 for offences under sections 16/10 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The relevant facts as given in the F.I.R. are that Mst. Nasim Mai daughter of the complainant was allegedly married with one Sajid Hussain about four years prior to the occurrence but consummation (Rukhsati) had not taken place. It is further stated that petitioner had developed relationship with Mst. Nasim Mai daughter of the complainant. It is added that on 25‑12‑2000 the complainant discovered that Mst. Nasim Mai was missing from the house but during search P.Ws informed the complainant that they had seen Mst. Nasim Mai in the company of the petitioner and others. According to the F.I.R. the complainant approached the petitioner who promised to return Mst. Nasim Mai on 27‑1‑2000 but as the promise was not fulfilled the matter was reported to the police.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 16‑8‑2001 and is in judicial lock‑up.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that Mst. Nasim Mai has so far not been recovered and at the time of arrest of the petitioner she was not accompanying him. According to Nikah Nama placed on the record of the case the petitioner married with Mst. Nasim Mai on 4‑2‑1999 and the same was also registered The complainant has also produced a Nikah Nama dated 3.2.1996 showing Mst. Nasim Mai to be the wife of Sajid Hussain and the police officer present today before this Court has admitted that no evidence has been recorded so far to ascertain the validity or genuineness of the Nikah Nama. The matter was reported to the police after a delay of four days. In these circumstances the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of the subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. The prosecution would be free to move cancellation of bail in case some incriminating evidence is recorded by them after recovery of Mst. Nasim Mai.
H.B.T./G‑169/L Bail granted.