Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 1969
[Lahore]
Before Riaz Ahmad, J
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 1450/B and 1451/M of 1985/BWP, decided on 28th October, 1985.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) Ss.10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused allegedly enticing away abductee for committing Zina‑‑Abductee attaining puberty and swearing affidvaits of contracting marriage with accused‑‑Accused 'remaining in jail for more than 3 months‑‑Police submitting incomplete challan‑ Accused not required for investigation‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.
Rana Sardar Ahmed for Petitioner.
Jamil Pirzada for the State.
ORDER
On the report lodged by Muhammad Munir, father of Mst. Robina Kauser, Police Station, Dera Nawab Sahib, registered a case against the petitioner under the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on 26th of June, 1985. It is alleged, that the petitioner Muhammad Ibrahim had enticed away Mst. Robins Kauser for committing Zina with her. During the investigation of the case Mst. Robins Kauser was recovered and restored to the complainant. In support of this petition it is alleged that Mst. Robins Kauser had on her own entered into the contract of marriage with the petitioner. Mst. Robins Kauser also made statements and swore affidavits to this effect. It is further contended by the learned counsel, that in view of the judgment delivered by the Federal Shariat Court reported as Muhammad Iqbal v. The State P L D 1983 FSC 9 the marriage between the petitioner and Mst. Robins Kauser was valid, because she had attained puberty. On the other hand, Mr. Jamil Pirzada, who has vehemently opposed this application submits, that Mst. Robins Kauser had specifically accused the petitioner of having committing Zina with her. Her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which the said assertion was made. The petitioner was arrested in July, 1985, and the incomplete challan has been submitted and he is no more required by the police. In this view of the matter, I would direct, that the petitioner shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the E.A.C./A.C., Ahmedpur East.
S.A./M‑791/L Bail granted.