ALLAH DITTA vs KHADIM HUSSAIN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to cancel the bail granted to the respondents. The respondents were accused in a case registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Sessions Judge had initially granted bail, finding it difficult to reject a Nikahnama registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, at that preliminary stage of the proceedings. The High Court declined to interfere with this exercise of discretion, noting that the lower court's order did not suffer from any illegality. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the arguments presented by the petitioner to be identical to those previously raised before the High Court. Agreeing with the reasoning of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court in granting bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to maintain the bail order.
- Whether a High Court should interfere with the discretion of a Sessions Judge in granting bail when no illegality is shown?
- Can a court at the bail stage reject a registered Nikahnama under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 28-1-1981 dismissing an application filed by petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to respondents who are accused in a case under section lfi of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The respondents were released on bail by the Sessions. Judge, Muzaffargarh as he was impressed with the plea that Mst. Kaniz respondent had been earlier married to Khadim Hussain respondent oil 28-9-1980 under a valid Nikahnama registered at Liaqatpur District Rahimyar Khan. In his connection he observed as under: "It is difficult for me, sitting as Presiding Officer of a. Criminal Court to disbelieve or reject a Nikahnama registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 straightaway at this stage and to say that the marriage had not properly been performed on 28-9-1980 at Liaqntpur. The circumstances that Mst. Kaniz has appeared today in this Court with the accused/ petitioner is also of relevant consideration, though nothing can be said at this stage about both the Nikahnamas."
3. The High Court by the impugned judgment refused to interfere with the view of the learned Sessions Judge for the reason that "the discretion exercised by the lower Court does not appear to be suffering from any illegality which should call for interference by this Court at this stage."
4. The arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing in Support of this petition are identical to those raised before the High Court and our view in this regard is also the same as prevailed in the High Court.
5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.