Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AYUB VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad Akram BaituSaghir Ahmed Bhatti,Azhar Kamiana
2005 Y L R 3319
2005 Y L R 3319
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Akram Baitu, J
MUHAMMAD AYUB---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 118-B of 2004, decided on 26th January, 2004.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365, 452, 380, 148 & 149---Anticipatory ball, confirmation of---Further inquiry ---Prosecutrix present in Court had stated that she had exonerated accused from crime complained of---Prosecutrix had stated that she had not been abducted by accused nor she had contracted marriage with the complainant---Counsel for accused during course of his arguments had pointed out that a suit for jactitation of marriage had already been decreed in favour of prosecutrix---Sufficient reasons existed to believe that case of accused fell under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
Saghir Ahmed Bhatti for Petitioner.
Azhar Kamiana for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th January, 2004.
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his anticipatory bail in a case F.I.R. No.304 of 2002 dated 12-10-2002 registered under sections 365/452/148/149/380, P.P.C. at Police Station, Kacha Khuh, District Khanewal on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide of the complainant; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioner; that Mst. Gulnaz prosecutrix has exonerated the petitioner from the crime complained. It is lastly contended that the case of petitioner is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail.
2. On the contrary the learned State counsel has strongly opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that specific part of violence has been attributed to the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for extraordinary concession of bail.
3. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
4. From the perusal of statement of Mst. Gulnaz prosecutrix who is also present in Court, it is obvious that she has exonerated the petitioner from the crime complained. She states that she has not been abducted by the petitioner nor she has contracted marriage with the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments pointed out that a suit for jactitation of marriage has already been decreed in favour of the prosecutrix. In view of the above discussion there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, the instant petition is allowed and the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15-1-2004 by this Court is hereby confirmed.
H.B.T./M-1309/L Bail confirmed.