Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1989 P Cr. L J 1595

ALLAH WASAYA vs THE STATE

Citation1989 P Cr. L J 1595
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,1113/B of 1988/BWP
Date1989-02-22
Judge(s)Muhammad Munir Khan
ResultBail maintained

ORDER

' This is an application for cancellation of to Khadim Hussain respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur on 24-9-1988, in a case under section 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Nowshera Jadeed, vide F.I.R. No, 193/88.

2. The prosecution case is that Khadim Hussain took away Mst. Asho Mai in order to commit sexual intercourse and thereafter had been committing Zina with her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mst. Asho was primarily married to one Muhammad Amin, who died on 13-8-1987. After the death of her husband, Mst. Asho Mai developed illicit relations with Khadim Hussain and married him on 10-12-1987 before the expiry of the period of Iddat. Since the marriage of Mst. Asho with Khadim Hussain respondent took place before the expiry of Iddat period, therefore, the same being void, Mst. Asho is not legally-wedded wife and he is commiting Zina with her. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this application on the ground that the marriage contracted during Iddat is at the worst an irregular marriage and not void. Learned counsel for the State has supported the: application for cancellation of bail.4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that Khadim Hussain has married with Mst. Asho after the death of her previous husband and it is yet to be determined by the trial Court as to whether Nikah performed during Iddat period is void or irregular. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given reasons for granting bail to the respondent. It is well-settled that once bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then strong grounds would be required for interference with the same which I do not see in the case in hand.

' For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch