Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
1997 M L D 2872
1997 M L D 2872
[Lahore]
Before Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
LAL‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
SAJJAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1521‑CB of 1996, decided on 27th January, 1997.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 11‑‑‑Cancellation of pre‑arrest bail‑‑‑Impugned order did not show as to what prevailed with the Court in admitting the accused to pre‑arrest bail‑‑ Offence charged against accused being serious and punishable up to imprisonment for life and no mala fides having been alleged against the police, exercise of discretion by the Sessions Court was improper if not illegal ‑‑‑Pre-arrest bail allowed to accused was cancelled in circumstances.
Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi for Petitioner.
Muhammad Anwar‑ul‑Haq for the State.
Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. l
Date of hearing: 27th January, 1997.
ORDER
Respondent No.1 is an accused in case F.I.R. No.268 of 1996, dated 8‑7‑1996, registered at Police Station Harrapa, District Sahiwal. He was admitted to pre‑arrest bail in the case by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, on 21‑7‑1996. By way of this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., the complainant prays that the bail be recalled on the ground that there is prima facie a case against the petitioner and that the necessary ingredients, viz. mala fide of the police, is not available in the present case.
2. On behalf of respondent No. l the claim is controverted and it is maintained that in the F.I.R. the allegations are not precise and it is not clear as to whether Muhammad Nawaz, co‑accused has abducted the girl or respondent No. 1, Sajjad has done so.
3. I have perused the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is difficult to read the impugned order inasmuch as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has written a very long sentence covering almost 3/4th of the page. It is not clear as to what prevailed with the Court in admitting the respondent No. l to pre‑arrest bail in a case where section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, is claimed to have been violated. The offence being serious and punishable up to imprisonment for life and no mala fide having been alleged against the police, the exercise of discretion by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is improper, if not illegal. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the bail granted to respondent No. l by the order dated 21‑7‑1996 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, is hereby cancelled. Disposed of.
N.H.Q./L‑18/L Bail cancelled.