PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 394
Present: Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, J.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM--Petitioner
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. 10888-B of 2008, decided on
18.2.2009.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of
1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Offence of Zina
(Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 11/10--Pakistan Penal Code
1860 (XLV of 1860) Ss. 471/ 467/468--Bail--Grant of--Prayer for--Further
inquiry--Case against petitioner was doubtful for reason that complainant had
filed writ petition according to which, she had refuted all allegations
levelled against petitioner--She submitted before High Court that She being sui
juries had contracted marriage with petitioner with her free will and consent
but subsequently she had resiled from her statement--She put up an application
for registration of a criminal case in Court of Additional Sessions
Judge/Justice of peace meaning thereby that she had changed her earlier
stance--Moreover, there was a delay of eight months in lodging FIR which has
not been sufficiently explained--Had occurrence genuinely been taken place then
there was no reason for family members of complainant not to get case
registered against petitioner or any body else regarding abduction of
complainant--Case of petitioner clearly falls within ambit of further inquiry
into his guilt--Petitioner was admitted to bail--Petition accepted. [P. 395] A, B & C
Ch. Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate for
Petitioner
Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad, DPG for State.
Date of hearing 18.2.2009
Order
Muhammad Saleem petitioner seeks post
arrest bail in case FIR No. 654 dated 23.12.2002, registered under Section
11/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance No. VII of 1979,
Sections 471/467/468 PPC at Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against the
petitioner, as per the narration of the FIR are that he had abducted Mst. Razia
Manzoor complainant, had procured forcibly nikah nama
after obtaining her signatures after abduction under coercion and had also
subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabar as well.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the occurrence in the instant case took place on 18.4.2002 whereas
FIR was got registered against the petitioner on 23.12.2002 with the delay of
eight months for which no plausible explanation was ever given. He has
particularly referred Writ Petition No. 9104/2002 filed by the complainant in
this Court wherein she had categorically stated that she had contracted
marriage with the petitioner with her free will and consent. He further submits
that had the complainant been abducted then there was no reason for the father
of the complainant not to register a criminal case against the petitioner
instantly. Since delay of eight months in lodging the FIR has not been
explained, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out.
Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and under the circumstances the
case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Learned DPG opposes the bail
application and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a
specific role of the commission of heinous offence of abduction and
Zina-bil-Jabar against the petitioner. He further argues that nikah nama has been declared fabricated in police investigation
and the petitioner has been declared guilty. He also submits that the alleged
nikah nama was not found registered any where. He
lastly argues that the petitioner remained absconder for five years which shows
his guilt.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel
and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the
FIR with a specific role but this Court has to make tentative assessment on the
basis of the available record, according to which, serious allegations have
been levelled against the petitioner but minute perusal of the record reveals
that the case against the petitioner is doubtful for the reason that the
complainant had filed Writ Petition No. 9104/2002 before this Court on
29.5.2002, according to which, she had refuted all the allegations levelled
against the petitioner and submitted before the Court that she being sui juris
had contracted marriage with petitioner with her free will and consent but
subsequently she had resiled form her statement and had put up an application
for registration of a criminal case in the Court of Mr. Tariq Iftikhar
Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Lahore meaning thereby that she had
changed her earlier stance. With this situation in hand, I am afraid, no
reliance can be placed on the statement of the complainant as her statement
before this Court is in direct conflict with her application which she
subsequently made before the learned Justice of Peace regarding registration of
a criminal case against the petitioner because she had earlier stated before
this Court that she had contracted marriage with her free will and consent.
Moreover, there is a delay of eight months in lodging the FIR which has not
been sufficiently explained. Had the occurrence genuinely been taken place then
there was no reason for the family members of the complainant not to get the
case registered against the petitioner or any body else regarding abduction of
Mst. Razia Manzoor.
6. Under the circumstances, the case of
the petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of further inquiry into his
guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing
bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(Sh.A.S.) Bail
admitted.
