ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner, Abdul Ghafoor, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 365-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging abduction. The petitioner contended that the alleged abductee was his legally wedded wife and that the complainant had fabricated a prior Nikahnama to falsely frame him for abduction. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the offense was heinous and fell within the prohibitory clause, thus disentitling the petitioner to relief at this stage. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that a critical factual dispute existed regarding the validity of the alleged abductee's previous marriage versus the petitioner's claim of a valid marriage. The Court held that determining whether the abductee was already married or if the alleged marriage was a pretext for abduction required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that where the case involves a disputed question of fact requiring further investigation, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does a dispute regarding the validity of a marriage in an abduction case constitute grounds for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case rests on a disputed factual claim that requires further investigation?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.---Petitioner Abdul Ghafoor, who is charged in a case registered against him and others under sections 365-B/34, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. No,27, dated 29-1-2011 in Police Station Shah Salim, District Karak, has asked for his release on bail mainly on the grounds that the abductee so- called is his legally wedded wife and that the previous Nikahnama appears to be a brainchild of the complainant to make out a case of abduction for marriage.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner being guilty of a heinous crime attracting prohibitory clause does not deserve the concession of bail at least at this stage.
3. 1 have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions advanced at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Whether the abductee so-called was already married or her alleged marriage is just a pretext to keep her away from her husband she married against the wishes of her family, is a question requiring further enquiry. I thus allow this petition and direct release of the petitioner on bail if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,Three lac, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mst Rehanan & Dawood vs State & another 2017 PHC 589
- Mst. REHANA and another vs The STATE through Additional Advocate- 2018 MLD 920