2003 PLP 1707 (MLD)
REHANA BIBI alias SHAMA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1707 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHANA BIBI alias SHAMA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1707 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1707 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1707 (MLD) (REHANA BIBI alias SHAMA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Tariq Mahmood Farukh for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/16
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380--Bail, grant of-- Further inquiry
Complainant who claimed to be husband of the accused had alleged that co-accused and an unknown person had abducted her for Zina
Said lady had been arrayed as an accused by police being a consenting party to Zina
Accused had contended that her Nikah was never performed with the complainant as mentioned in F.I.R., and that she was legally wedded wife of the co-accused
Prosecution had confirmed that copy of her Nikah with co-accused was available on the police record and no direct evidence of Zina against the lady accused was on police record
Case of two Nikahs of accused, one with the complainant and the other with co-accused and she had owned one with the co-accused
Question as to which of those two Nikahas was right seriously needed consideration
Case against accused required further inquiry into her guilt and was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused being a woman, first proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C. was attracted to her case
Accused lady was behind the bars and was stated to be previous non-convict was entitled to bail.
Judgment & Decree
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 2/3-3-2003 at about 9-30 p.m. Muhammad Matteen and an unknown person had abducted her for Zina.
3. It has been contended on her behalf that she has falsely been roped in; that no Nikah of her was ever performed with Muhammad Arshad as alleged in the F.I.R.; that she is legally wedded wife of co-accused Muhammad Matteen; that there is no direct evidence of Zina against her; that she is a woman; that she is behind the bars since 27-3-2003; and that she is previous non convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that she had eloped with her co-accused Muhammad Matteen and, thereafter, had been committing Zina with him while her Nikah was already performed with Muhammad Arshad on 1-2-2003.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. The complainant has alleged in the F.I.R. that Muhammad Matteen alongwith an unknown person had abducted her for Zina. She has been arrayed as an accused by the police being consenting party to Zina. It has been contended by her side that her Nikah was never performed with Muhammad Arshad as mentioned in the F.I.R. She has stated to be the legally wedded wife of said Muhammad Matteen.
7. The learned State Counsel has confirmed that copy of her Nikah with Muhammad Matteen is available with the police record. He has also conceded that there is no direct evidence of Zina against her on police record.
8. Anyway, this is a case of two Nikahs of her. One with Muhammad Arsahd and the other with her said co-accused Muhammad Mateen: She has owned the one with co-accused. The question that which of these Nikahnamas is correct seriously needs consideration.
9. Hence, I find that in the above circumstances, the case against her certainly requires further inquiry into her guilt and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. Besides than this, she is a woman. So, the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. also attracted to her case.
11. She is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
12. In these circumstances, I find her entitled to bail. The petition therefore, is accepted and she is admitted to bail provided she furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur/trial Court. H.B.T./R-248/L Bail granted.