2006 PLP 3014 (YLR)
MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3014 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3014 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3014 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3014 (YLR) (MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Saleem Akhtar for Petitioner.
- Nadeem Iqbal Chaudhry for Respondent. No.2./Complainant
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11 & 10(3)
Non-registration of Nikahnama
Allegation against accused was that he abducted daughter of complainant and committed rape with her
Accused asserted that alleged abductee was his wife and relied upon unregistered Nikahnama
Matter had been reported to police after delay of one month
Alleged abductee recorded her statement in favour of accused before judicial Magistrate and in company of accused moved from one place to another without raising any protest
Under Shariah it was not required that Nikah was to be performed by a registered Nikah Khawan
Allegations levelled against accused needed further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail. M.A. Farazi for the State with Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.
Munir Ahmad son of Akhtar Ali, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.38, registered at Police Station, Saddar Haroonabad, on 3-2-2006, for Offences under sections 11/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Briefly, according to prosecution case, on 3-1-2006 Mst. Rizwana Kausar, daughter of the complainant was allegedly abducted by Munir Ahmad and other co-accused. Thereafter Munir Ahmad committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mst. Rizwana Kausar (alleged abducttee) is wife of the petitioner and has referred to Nikahnama annexure-D to this petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on 'behalf of the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition and has argued that Mst. Rizwana Kausar was forced to thumb-mark Nikahnama; and that after her recovery Mst. Rizwana Kausar supported the prosecution case in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that Mst. Rizwana Kausar was forced to file complaint against her relatives and the same has been withdrawn by her after her recovery; that she also supported the prosecution case before the Magistrate while withdrawing the private complainant filed by her; and that Nikah Khawan, who allegedly performed Nikah between the petitioner and Mst. Rizwana Kausar, was not a registered Nikah Khawan and has been included in the list of the accused.
5. The learned counsel for the State has adopted the line of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the matter was reported to the police after delay of full one month; Nikahnama annexure-D to this petition contains the signature as well as thumb mark of Mst. Rizwana Kausar; she also made statement in favour of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Bahawalnagar; Mst. Rizwana Kausar, remained in the company of petitioner till 14-2-2006 and had been moving from one place to another without raising any protest. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned that Nikah Khawan was not registered Nikha Khawan, it has no force as it is not required by Sharia that Nikah should be performed by a registered Nikah Khawan. In these circumstances, the allegations levelled against the petitioner need further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.M.B./M-339/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.