Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAKIM ALI VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Farrukh MahmudRana Jahanzaib Khan,Rana Kanwar Iqbal
2002 Y L R 3666
2002 Y L R 3666
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
HAKIM ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1719‑B of 2001, decided on 3rd September, 2001.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.452‑‑‑0fence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10/18‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Delay of three days in lodging F.I.R.‑‑‑No mark of struggle was found on person of complainant/alleged victim and Investigating Officer also could not detect any such sign at the place of occurrence‑‑‑Case against accused needing further probe and inquiry within ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C., accused was admitted to bail.
Rana Jahanzaib Khan for Petitioner.
Rana Kanwar Iqbal for the State.
ORDER
Hakim Ali, petitioner, through this petition has sought his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.73 of 2001 dated 7‑3‑2001 under sections 18/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with section 452, P.P.C., registered at the Police Station Saddar Shujabad, District Multan.
2. Mst. Rukhsana, the complainant, has stated in the F.I.R. that on 4‑3‑2001, when she was alone in the house, the petitioner/accused at about 1‑30 p.m. trespassed into the Haveli of the complainant and caught hold the complainant from her arms and forced her into a living room, where he removed the Shalwar of the complainant and also removed his own Shalwar. However, the petitioner/accused could not commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with the complainant as the eye‑witnesses were attracted on the alarm of the complainant. It has also been stated in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was having a sickle at the time of occurrence.
3. The petitioner was arrested, on 14‑3‑2000 and was sent to judicial lock‑up on 17‑3‑2000. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C./challan has also been completed and sent up to the relevant Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that there is delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. There was no mark of struggle on the person of the complainant. The Investigating Officer also could not detect any sign of struggle at the place of occurrence.
5. In view of the above circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./H‑113/L Bail granted.