Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ALTAF VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainAyaz Ahmad Chaudhry,Mrs. Humera Tariq,Javed Iqbal
2003 M L D 1397
2003 M L D 1397
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
MUHAMMAD ALTAF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.226-B of 2003, decided on 25th March, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10(2)/11---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was merely witness of Nikah between co-accused and alleged abductee and no allegation of Zina was levelled against the accused---Alleged abductee had owned co-accused to be her husband---Case against accused fell under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt-- Accused was behind the bars and was stated to be previous non convict---Accused was admitted to bail.
Ayaz Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Javed Iqbal for the State.
Mrs. Humera Tariq for the Complainant.
ORDER
Muhammad Altaf, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.258 dated 17-11-2002 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Thingi, District Vehari. Later on, the police have added section 10(2) of the same in it.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 4-11-2002 Muhammad Ramzan and others had forcibly abducted Mst. Riffat Perveen, 17/18 years old; the daughter of the complainant for Zina.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that there is delay of 13 days without any reasonable explanation; that he is merely witness of Nikah between Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Riffat Perveen; that there is no allegation of Zina against him, that co-accused Muhammad Ramzan and Mgt. Riffat are legally wedded spouses and so no offence has been committed by anyone; that he is behind the bars for the last about four months; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel, for she complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is one of the accused persons who had forcibly abducted the daughter of the complainant for Zina; and that he is also witness of Nikah between Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Riffat Perveen while their Nikahanama has been found by the police to be forged one and not genuine and so he is connected with the offence.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly he alongwith Muhammad Ramzan and others had forcibly abducted Mst. Riffat Perveen, the daughter of the complainant for Zina. Besides than this, he is also said to be one of the witnesses of the Niakh between co-accused Muhammad Ramzan and the alleged abductee.
7. There is with the petition, the copy of application submitted by Muhammad Ramzan co-accused for her release from the Darul Aman. In the same, on 17-12-2002, she was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Multan. She has stated before him that she wants her release and has owned Muhammad Ramzan to be her husband. There is no allegation of Zina against him. Hence, his case falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, find him entitled to bail The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the leaned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1881/L Bail granted.