Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2001 YLR 2587

MUHAMMAD SHARIF alias MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE

Citation2001 YLR 2587
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.1423-B and 1380-B of 2001
Date2001-07-12
Judge(s)Tasaddaq Hussain Jillani
ResultBail granted

ORDER

' This order shall dispose of Criminal ' Miscellaneous No,1423-B of 2001 and Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1380-B of 2001 as both arise out of the same F.I.R. No,47 of 2001, dated 18-2-2001, under sections 10(2)13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Police Station, City Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif registered on the statement of Mst. Afzal Bibi, wherein it is alleged that on the fateful day the complainant went in the evening to the house of petitioner Muhammad Sharif as the latter had promised that he would arrange some job for the complainant's son. Muhammad Sharif and Ijaz petitioner committed rape with her turn by turn.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that there is a delay of 8 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence; that two eye-witnesses stated in the F.I.R. Had sworn affidavit disowning the prosecution story and had appeared before the learned Additional Session Judge, Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif in support of the affidavit given. It is lastly contended that during the investigation the complainant's story was found to be false and the police came to the conclusion that the complainant is prostitute and that there was a dispute over the money, hence the case was registered.

3. Learned State counsel has opposed the petitions by submitting that both the petitioners are specifically framed in the F.I.R., and the offences alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. However, on Court query it is conceded that the complainant has also been challancd but she is presently fugitive to law.

4. Heard.

5. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence except the complainant who too has been challaned. There is no medical evidence in support of the complainant's version. She is stated to be fugitive to law. There is a delay of 8 days in lodging the F.I.R. In the afore-referred circumstances the question of petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. Resultantly, both these petitions are allowed and subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court they shall be released on bail.

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