1989 PLP 4644 (MLD)
Syed SULTAN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4644 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalid Paul, J |
| Parties | Syed SULTAN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4644 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4644 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalid Paul, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4644 (MLD) (Syed SULTAN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rashid Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused was actively in league with co‑accused‑‑Statements of witnesses connected accused with the offence charged‑‑Abductee and her minor children were not recovered‑‑One of the accused was absconding‑‑Mere fact that accused was lodged in judicial lock‑up or the offence did nut fall within prohibitory clause, held, would not entitle the accused to be refused on bail‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Asif Khalil for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 8th July, 1989. On 1‑5‑1989 at Police Station Akbari Gate, Lahore a case under section 16 o the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against Abdul Majeed Rakib and Abid Hussain Manzar accused at the instance of Muhammad Saleem complainant.
2. It was alleged that in October, 1988 the abovementioned two accused took Rs.20,000 from the complainant and arranged a visa for him to work in Saudi Arabia. As the working conditions there were not satisfactory the complainant came back to Pakistan on 23‑4‑1989 and found that on 22‑3‑1989 the aforesaid two accused had abducted his wife Mst. Shahnaz alongwith his three minor children and his sister‑in‑law Mst. Musarrat Shafique PW. It also came to his knowledge that the two accused had taken away alongwith them the household effects of the complainant. Mst. Mussarat Shafique made good her escape after about 16/17 days and came back to Lahore and informed the petitioner that his wife and children were taken to Hyderabad by the said accused.
3. On the same day i.e. on 1‑5‑1989 the statement of Mst. Musarrat Shafque PW was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. She disclosed that the abovementioned two accused had taken her, her sister Mst. Shahnaz and her minor children to Hyderabad by train where a Pathan, who subsequently was indentified to be Syed Sultan Shah petitioner, received them at the Railway Station Hyderabad and took all of them to a hotel in car. She further stated that the two accused and the petitioner used to keep watch on them but she, somehow, managed to escape.
4. On 16‑5‑1989 Syed Sultan Shah petitioner was arrested from Hyderabad after having been identified by Mst. Musarrat Shafique PW. On the same clay the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Ghulam Hussain, Principal. Poly Technical College, Hyderabad, wherein he stated that he had arranged a house on rent for Abid Hussain Manzar accused at the instance of the petitioner who had told him that the said accused was the husband of Mst. Shahnaz and the father of the three children. He further stated that the petitioner used to visit them daily in the said house. On the same day the statement of Muhammad Umar the brother of Mst. Shahnaz abductee was recorded. He stated that on having come to know that his sister alongwith her children had been abducted, he alongwith his brothers went to Hyderabad and contacted Syed Sultan Shah petitioner who was providing protection to the said accused. The petitioner admitted before them that Mst. Shahnaz and her children were living with Abid Hussain Manzar accused but was hesitant to disclose their whereabouts.
5. The petitioner applied for his bail but his bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 13‑6‑1989. He has now come to this Court for his bail.
6. I have the parties counsel and have gone through the record.
7. The statement of Mst. Musarrat Shafique, Principal Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Umar PWs show that the petitioner was actively in league with his co‑accused Abdul Majeed Rakib and Abid Hussain Manzar. These statements sufficiently connect him with the offence charged against him. Up till now neither Mst. Shahnaz nor her minor children have been recovered. The police has also not been able to arrest Abid Hussain Manzar accused who is absconding. In these circumstances, I do not feel inclined to hold that this is a fit case for the grant of bail. The mere fact that the petitioner is lodged in the judicial lock‑up or the offence charged against him does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C does not make it a good case for his release on bail. Consequently the bail application is dismissed. S.A./S‑559/L Bail refused.