MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner was accused of committing Zina-bil-Jabr against the complainant. The petitioner's counsel argued that the First Information Report (FIR) was at variance with the complainant's subsequent statement, medical evidence indicated she was accustomed to sexual intercourse, and she had executed an affidavit stating she voluntarily married the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that these arguments had already been considered and rejected by the High Court. Holding that no case was made out to interfere with the discretionary power exercised by the High Court in refusing bail, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Whether minor discrepancies between an FIR and a victim's subsequent statement are sufficient grounds for granting bail in a Zina-bil-Jabr case?
- Does an affidavit of voluntary marriage by the victim automatically entitle an accused of Zina-bil-Jabr to bail?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by the High Court in bail matters?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 19, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26th April, 1989 whereby bail application of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' A case is registered against the petitioner under sections 10, 11, 16 and 19 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. The allegation is that he committed the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr on Mst.
3. Shamshad Begum. There were three co-accused against whom the allegation was for having stood as guards and they were allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. However, the petitioner was refused bail not only by the Additional Sessions Judge but also by the High Court.
4. Learned counsel contends that the F.I.R. Was at variance with the statement of Mst. Shamshad Begum dated 21st February, 1989, that according to the medical evidence she had been used to sexual intercourse, that the petitioner had contracted marriage with her vide Nikah and that she had made an affidavit to the effect that she had voluntarily come with the petitioner and married him. All these arguments had been raised before the learned Single Judge as is evident from para. 4 of the impugned order of the High Court, but these had been rightly rejected. No case is made out for interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the High Court in this case.
5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 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.