Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL RASHEED VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainMian Fazal Rauf Joya,Sikandar Javed,Nasrullah Khan Kakar
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 1670
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
ABDUL RASHEED---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 488/B of 2003, decided on 6th May, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/11--Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against accused was that he alongwith other unknown persons had forcibly abducted sister-in-law of complainant and thereafter he subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabr---Alleged abductee was a dumb girl and through signs indicated that she was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr by accused---Alleged abduetee had been arrayed as an accused in the case being consenting party to the affair---State Counsel had conceded that there was no direct evidence of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr against the accused---Question that in such circumstances, if the accused could be held liable for alleged offence, needed serious consideration---Case of accused, in circumstances, was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt---Accused was behind the bars for the last about 8 months and was a previous non-convict---Accused, in circumstances was entitled to concession of bail.
Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner
Nasrullah Khan Kakar for the State
Sikandar Javed for the Complainant
ORDER
Abdul Rasheed, the petitioner has sought for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.477, dated 2-9-2002 under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R., is that on the night between 30/31-8-2002 at about 5-00 a.m. present petitioner and two unknown persons had forcibly abducted Mst. Najma Bibi alias Gongi, the sister-in-law of the complainant and thereafter he had subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabr.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in that there is three days unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is similar delay in medical examination of the prosecutrix; that the prosecutrix has been arrayed as an accused in this case being consenting party to Zina; that he is no more required by the police; that he is behind the bars for the last about 8 months; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that the MLR of the prosecutrix shows that she was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr; that a private complaint has been filed by the complainant on the same facts in which some order is still awaited; and that the report of the Chemical Examiner is positive and all these facts connect him with the crime.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides and perused the record.
6. Allegedly the petitioner alongwith two other unknown persons had forcibly abducted Mst. Najma Bibi, the sister-in-law of the complainant and thereafter he subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabr. She allegedly is a dumb girl and through signs indicated that she was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr by the petitioner. She has been arrayed as an accused in this case being consenting party to such affair. The learned State Counsel has frankly conceded that there is no direct evidence of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr against him. The question that in such circumstances, if he can be held liable, for the alleged offence needs serious consideration. His case, thus, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about 8 months and a previous non -convict.
7. In these circumstances, I 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 learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A-820/L Bail granted.