Mst. Noor Bibi, petitioner, was arrested in a case registered against her under sections 10 and 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No.189, dated 15-7-1985 at Police Station Renala Khurd. She was allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge II, , Okara, void order, dated 28-5-1986, observing that th petitioner would be "released on bail furnished by the person within the prohibited degree". Feeling aggrieved of this observation the instant revision petition has been filed.
2. It is stated that the scope of the bail order as to person who can furnish bail for securing the release of the petitioner may be enlarged. Learned counsel submitted a list of six persons saying that they are honest and respectable persons who are prepared to stand surety for the petitioner. I had summoned the S.H.O. To verify if the persons mentioned in the above-said list are really honest, respectable and responsible gentlemen of the locality. S.I. Noor Muhammad, Additional S.H.O. Police Station Renala Khurd has verified the _credentials of Shahadat AU, Muhammad Zafar and Muhammad Hussain Shah.
3. In the above circumstances, I would, in the exercise of my revisional .Jurisdiction, modify the impugned order to mean that th petitioner may be released on bail on furnishing security by any of th aforementioned three persons or others who are related to her within the prohibited degree. With this modification in. The impugned order, this petition is disposed of.
Petition accepted.
1986 M. L D 1697 [Lahore] Befo;.e Khizar Ilayat, J WASEEM NIAZ--Petitioner versus THE STATE--Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No.1952-B of 1986, decided on 26th July, 1986.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---S. 498--Offences Against Property (Enforcenient of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss. 7 & 17-- Bail--Offence of "Haraba"--Accused not named in first information report but picked out by complainant alon4 during identification-Accused remaining in custody of Police a week before identification parade--Possibility of his having been shown to witness before identification parade not ruled. Out--No stolen property recovered from accused and he was not a previous convict--No male witness of occurrence produced-Whether case was covered by S.17 of Ordinance VI of 1979, was also a moot point-- to accused in circumstances. [p. 1698] A Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner.
Kh. Hafeez Ullah for the State.
ORDER Waseem Niaz alias Semi, petitioner, alongwith 4 others is accused of having committed the offence of "Haraba" and has been arrested in the case registered at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad, vide F.I.R. No.63, dated 27-1-1986, under section 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudopd) Ordinance. 1979, at the instance of Mst. Aimna Bibi, complainant.
2. According to the complainant, she was present in her house alongwith her daughters Mat.
Sakina and Mst. Zahida in the evening of,, 27-1-1986. At about 7-00 p.m., three accused persons armed with deadly weapons broke into her house and at pistol point took away their ornaments of gold worth Rs.38,500. It appears that during investigation the petitioner was arrested in another case F.I.R. No.170, dated 20-5-1986, by C.I.A. Staff, Faisalabad, during the first or second week of March, 1986, and having obtained his remand to police custody for a number of days the police found the Petitioner as innocent and got him discharged on 24-3-1986 from the Ilaqa Magistrate. The petitioner was then arrested the same day in the instant case by factory Area Police and lodged in jail on 25-3-1986. In a test identification held in jail premises under the supervision of a Magistrate on 3-4-1986 wherein Mst. Aimna, complainant, alone identified the petitioner besides one Muhammad Ashraf. It is noteworthy that although one Naseer Ah-mad was also arrested in the case and was arrayed in the identification parade yet he was not identified by the complainant although said Naseer was the son of her husband's brother. It is, however, admitted that no recovery of stolen property has been effected from the petitioner.
'
3. The petitioner having unsuccessfully applied in the lower Court has approached this Court for the grant of bail. I lxve heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record..
4. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been pick out by the complainant alone during the test identification but th petitioner admittedly remained in the custody of police a week befor the identification parade was held, therefore, the possibility of hi having been shown to the witness before the identification parade canno be ruled out. The other two eye-witnesses named in the did not take part in the identification parade. No stolen property has bee recovered from the petitioner.
He is not a previous convict. It is als a moot point whether petitioner's case is covered by section 17 of th Ordinahce or section 392/395 of Pakistan Penal Code because therg is no male witness of the occurrence as required under section' 7 of th Ordinance. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to allow this petition. It is directed that the petitioner be released subject to his furnisfiin bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the ik amount, to the satisfaction of A.C. /Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.