Bail for the offence 365-b allowed
2015 YLR 1777 PESHAWAR FARMAN ALI
FAZAL RABI
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Kidnaping a woman to compel her for marriage---bail , grant of---Absondence of accused---Effect---Accused was arrested after recovery of abductee who alleged him for kidnaping her and illegally confining her---Validity---Two main components and ingredients of offence: Firstly there must be kidnaping or abduction of a woman and secondly the first act of abduction and kidnaping was with intent that she could be compelled to marriage or be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse---All such elements were missing against accused---Long abscondance of accused by itself was no ground for refusal of bail , when otherwise case for bail was made out on merits---Though offence was heinous in nature but mere fact that accused was charged for a heinous offence would not hamper in the way of bail , if otherwise, he had made out a case of bail on merits---Accused despite remaining in police custody made no confession before competent Court nor abductee had been recovered by local police from his possession, which had made case of accused one of further inquiry---bail was allowed in circumstances.
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Kidnaping a woman to compel her for marriage---bail , grant of---Absondence of accused---Effect---Accused was arrested after recovery of abductee who alleged him for kidnaping her and illegally confining her---Validity---Two main components and ingredients of offence: Firstly there must be kidnaping or abduction of a woman and secondly the first act of abduction and kidnaping was with intent that she could be compelled to marriage or be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse---All such elements were missing against accused---Long abscondance of accused by itself was no ground for refusal of bail , when otherwise case for bail was made out on merits---Though offence was heinous in nature but mere fact that accused was charged for a heinous offence would not hamper in the way of bail , if otherwise, he had made out a case of bail on merits---Accused despite remaining in police custody made no confession before competent Court nor abductee had been recovered by local police from his possession, which had made case of accused one of further inquiry---bail was allowed in circumstances.
2014 MLD 473 LAHORE SHAMAS DIN State
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Kidnapping woman to compel for marriage---bail , grant of---Divergent stance of alleged abductee---Case of further inquiry---Three statements of alleged abductee were on the record which were contradictory to one another---Effect---Alleged abductee had taken divergent stands at different forums and the same had prima facie created serious doubt in prosecution story mentioned in F.I.R. and benefit of such doubt was to go in favour of accused---High Court expressed with concern that it had become routine that when girl/abductee joined her parents she took summersault from her earlier stance---Mere heinousness of offence was not a ground to refuse bail to an accused person who otherwise was entitled for the same relief---Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---bail was allowed in circumstances.
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Kidnapping woman to compel for marriage---bail , grant of---Divergent stance of alleged abductee---Case of further inquiry---Three statements of alleged abductee were on the record which were contradictory to one another---Effect---Alleged abductee had taken divergent stands at different forums and the same had prima facie created serious doubt in prosecution story mentioned in F.I.R. and benefit of such doubt was to go in favour of accused---High Court expressed with concern that it had become routine that when girl/abductee joined her parents she took summersault from her earlier stance---Mere heinousness of offence was not a ground to refuse bail to an accused person who otherwise was entitled for the same relief---Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---bail was allowed in circumstances.
2013 YLR 703 QUETTA MUHAMMAD AMIN
State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-b /452/ 496-A/ 147/ 148/ 149---Kid-napping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---bail , grant of---No case of abduction was made out---Effect---Allegation against accused persons was that they came to complainant's house while armed with weapons and forcibly abducted his sister/alleged abductee---Alleged abductee recorded her statement before the Magistrate to the effect that she left her house with her own consent and free-will and contracted marriage with one of the accused---Trial Court rejected bail application of accused persons on the grounds that alleged abductee was still in their custody; that her Nikah was disputed and she had not been recovered, and that offence alleged fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Alleged abductee recorded her statement on oath before the Magistrate, wherein she stated that she had voluntarily gone with one of the accused and contracted valid marriage with him of her own choice---Alleged abductee negated the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.---Magistrate allowed alleged abductee to go with her husband after recording her statement---No case of abduction was made out against accused persons and they were admitted to bail accordingly.
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-b /452/ 496-A/ 147/ 148/ 149---Kid-napping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---bail , grant of---No case of abduction was made out---Effect---Allegation against accused persons was that they came to complainant's house while armed with weapons and forcibly abducted his sister/alleged abductee---Alleged abductee recorded her statement before the Magistrate to the effect that she left her house with her own consent and free-will and contracted marriage with one of the accused---Trial Court rejected bail application of accused persons on the grounds that alleged abductee was still in their custody; that her Nikah was disputed and she had not been recovered, and that offence alleged fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Alleged abductee recorded her statement on oath before the Magistrate, wherein she stated that she had voluntarily gone with one of the accused and contracted valid marriage with him of her own choice---Alleged abductee negated the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.---Magistrate allowed alleged abductee to go with her husband after recording her statement---No case of abduction was made out against accused persons and they were admitted to bail accordingly.
2013 YLR 2648 LAHORE Mrs. SARDARAN
BIBI State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, etc.---bail , before arrest, grant of---Delay of one month and twenty-eight days in registration of the F.I.R., had not been explained by the complainant---Alleged abductee in her statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., had refuted the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R.; and had stated that she had contracted marriage with the accused, of her own free will and volition; and that nobody had abducted her---Even in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. by the Special Judicial Magistrate, alleged abductee had refuted her abduction and affirmed factum of her Nikkah with accused---Complainant seemed to have spreaded net wide, just to entangle the whole family of accused in the case---Accused persons, who were previous non-convict, were never involved in any criminal case---Accused persons, having already joined the investigation, sending them behind the bars, would not serve any beneficial purpose---False implication of accused, could not be ruled out of consideration, in circumstances---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused persons, was confirmed, in circumstances.
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, etc.---bail , before arrest, grant of---Delay of one month and twenty-eight days in registration of the F.I.R., had not been explained by the complainant---Alleged abductee in her statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., had refuted the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R.; and had stated that she had contracted marriage with the accused, of her own free will and volition; and that nobody had abducted her---Even in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. by the Special Judicial Magistrate, alleged abductee had refuted her abduction and affirmed factum of her Nikkah with accused---Complainant seemed to have spreaded net wide, just to entangle the whole family of accused in the case---Accused persons, who were previous non-convict, were never involved in any criminal case---Accused persons, having already joined the investigation, sending them behind the bars, would not serve any beneficial purpose---False implication of accused, could not be ruled out of consideration, in circumstances---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused persons, was confirmed, in circumstances.
2013 YLR 201 LAHORE SAIFULLAH alias
GAPPOO State
Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-b /376/420/468/471/496-A/ 458/494/495---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5 & Sched.--Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., rape, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, marrying again during life time of husband or wife, concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted---Ad interim pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Further inquiry---Nikah Nama in favour of accused---Divergent stances taken by alleged abductee---Suit for jactitation of marriage pending in Family Court---Effect---Accused was alleged to have abducted the abductee and contracted marriage with her, when allegedly she was already married to another person---Net was spread wide by complainant to entangle whole family of the accused in the case---Registered Nikah Nama of alleged abductee was available on record which established her marriage with accused---Nikah of alleged abductee with another person as claimed by complainant side was not available on police file---Suit for jactitation of marriage was pending in the Family Court and matters involving Nikah between parties should be resolved by Family Court and not by police---Alleged abductee had taken different stances at different forums during investigation, at times in support of accused and at against him, which itself created doubt in the prosecution story and made the case one of further inquiry---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances.
Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-b /376/420/468/471/496-A/ 458/494/495---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5 & Sched.--Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., rape, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, marrying again during life time of husband or wife, concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted---Ad interim pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Further inquiry---Nikah Nama in favour of accused---Divergent stances taken by alleged abductee---Suit for jactitation of marriage pending in Family Court---Effect---Accused was alleged to have abducted the abductee and contracted marriage with her, when allegedly she was already married to another person---Net was spread wide by complainant to entangle whole family of the accused in the case---Registered Nikah Nama of alleged abductee was available on record which established her marriage with accused---Nikah of alleged abductee with another person as claimed by complainant side was not available on police file---Suit for jactitation of marriage was pending in the Family Court and matters involving Nikah between parties should be resolved by Family Court and not by police---Alleged abductee had taken different stances at different forums during investigation, at times in support of accused and at against him, which itself created doubt in the prosecution story and made the case one of further inquiry---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances.
2013 PCrLJ 1424
KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ALI MURTAZA State
S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-b , 496-A, 457, 392 & 34---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, robbery, common intention---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Accused persons had allegedly abducted two women from the complainant's house---One of the alleged abductees appeared before the High Court and clearly stated that no such incident took place and she had married her husband of her own free-will---Other alleged abductee according to the complainant had contracted Nikah but her rukhsati had not taken place and she in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr. P. C. alleged that she was repeatedly raped by one of the accused persons, which fact was supported by the medical evidence---Validity---Contention of other alleged abductee was belied by two facts, firstly that said abductee was described in the F.LR. as the wife of a named person and secondly that in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P. C., she had stated that she wanted to go with her husband, but a girl whose rukhsati had not yet taken place, would obviously not like to go with her husband with whom only her Nikah had taken place---bail application of accused persons was allowed and pre-arrest bail already granted to theta was confirmed.
S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-b , 496-A, 457, 392 & 34---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, robbery, common intention---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Accused persons had allegedly abducted two women from the complainant's house---One of the alleged abductees appeared before the High Court and clearly stated that no such incident took place and she had married her husband of her own free-will---Other alleged abductee according to the complainant had contracted Nikah but her rukhsati had not taken place and she in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr. P. C. alleged that she was repeatedly raped by one of the accused persons, which fact was supported by the medical evidence---Validity---Contention of other alleged abductee was belied by two facts, firstly that said abductee was described in the F.LR. as the wife of a named person and secondly that in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P. C., she had stated that she wanted to go with her husband, but a girl whose rukhsati had not yet taken place, would obviously not like to go with her husband with whom only her Nikah had taken place---bail application of accused persons was allowed and pre-arrest bail already granted to theta was confirmed.
2012 YLR 425 LAHORE MUHAMMAD AMIN
State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Abducting woman to compel for marriage---bail , grant of---Accused was father of co-accused and he could not be expected to encourage or accompany his sons to commit an offence of moral turpitude or of abducting a woman---Accused was 80 years old---Factum of marriage between the co-accused and the alleged abductee was still to be probed into by Investigating Officer, who despite having received a copy of Nikahnama appeared to be reluctant to investigate the case from this angle---Co-accused had not been arrested so far---All able bodied male members of the family of the accused had been involved in the case---False implication of accused being father of co-accused and due to the malice or ulterior motives of the complainant, could not be ruled out---To keep the accused further incarcerated would be of no consequence to the prosecution case---bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Abducting woman to compel for marriage---bail , grant of---Accused was father of co-accused and he could not be expected to encourage or accompany his sons to commit an offence of moral turpitude or of abducting a woman---Accused was 80 years old---Factum of marriage between the co-accused and the alleged abductee was still to be probed into by Investigating Officer, who despite having received a copy of Nikahnama appeared to be reluctant to investigate the case from this angle---Co-accused had not been arrested so far---All able bodied male members of the family of the accused had been involved in the case---False implication of accused being father of co-accused and due to the malice or ulterior motives of the complainant, could not be ruled out---To keep the accused further incarcerated would be of no consequence to the prosecution case---bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
2012 MLD 1530 LAHORE MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ
State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-b -Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc.---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused was that he abducted the daughter of the complainant and took her to another city, where he subjected her to zina---Contentions of the accused were that the alleged abductee was his legally wedded wife; that his Nikah Nama had not so far been challenged; that the alleged abductee had filed a private complaint before the Magistrate, wherein she admitted to be the lawfully wedded wife of the accused; that alleged abductee had filed a petition under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C, against her father and uncle; that alleged abductee had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage while the accused had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which suits were pending before the Family Court, and that there was an unexplained delay of nineteen (19) days in lodging of the F.I.R.---Validity---Alleged abductee had admitted in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C, that she had eloped with the accused---Alleged abductee accompanied the accused to a different city where both of them lived together---Copies of the Nikah Nama, application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. filed by the alleged abductee, private complaint lodged by the alleged abductee against her parents, and suits filed before the Family Court, were present on record---Family Court had not as yet decided about the genuineness of the Nikahnama---Investigating officer was unable to satisfy the court whether he had ever tried to investigate about the genuineness of the Nikah Nama---Case of accused required further probe in terms of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C---bail petition of the accused was allowed and he was released on bail , in circumstances.
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-b -Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc.---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused was that he abducted the daughter of the complainant and took her to another city, where he subjected her to zina---Contentions of the accused were that the alleged abductee was his legally wedded wife; that his Nikah Nama had not so far been challenged; that the alleged abductee had filed a private complaint before the Magistrate, wherein she admitted to be the lawfully wedded wife of the accused; that alleged abductee had filed a petition under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C, against her father and uncle; that alleged abductee had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage while the accused had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which suits were pending before the Family Court, and that there was an unexplained delay of nineteen (19) days in lodging of the F.I.R.---Validity---Alleged abductee had admitted in her statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C, that she had eloped with the accused---Alleged abductee accompanied the accused to a different city where both of them lived together---Copies of the Nikah Nama, application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. filed by the alleged abductee, private complaint lodged by the alleged abductee against her parents, and suits filed before the Family Court, were present on record---Family Court had not as yet decided about the genuineness of the Nikahnama---Investigating officer was unable to satisfy the court whether he had ever tried to investigate about the genuineness of the Nikah Nama---Case of accused required further probe in terms of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C---bail petition of the accused was allowed and he was released on bail , in circumstances.
2012 MLD 677 LAHORE MUHAMMAD ARIF
SABRI State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Abduction---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Benefit of doubt---Complainant despite having been informed by the witnesses about the abduction of his two daughters by the accused, had kept on searching them without informing the police for twenty one days---Said inordinate delay of 21 days in lodging the F.I.R. had cast serious doubts about the veracity of the complainant---Both the alleged abductees had completely contradicted each other in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---One abductee had stated that the accused had not abducted her or her sister and that she had contracted Nikah with a person with her free-will---Other abductee had levelled allegation of abduction and zina against the accused---Both these statements when juxtaposed had, prima facie, made the case against the accused doubtful requiring further inquiry into the matter---Benefit of doubt, howsoever slight, had to be given to accused even at bail stage---Nothing was to be recovered from the accused and their further detention behind the bars would not be useful for the prosecution---bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-b ---Abduction---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Benefit of doubt---Complainant despite having been informed by the witnesses about the abduction of his two daughters by the accused, had kept on searching them without informing the police for twenty one days---Said inordinate delay of 21 days in lodging the F.I.R. had cast serious doubts about the veracity of the complainant---Both the alleged abductees had completely contradicted each other in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---One abductee had stated that the accused had not abducted her or her sister and that she had contracted Nikah with a person with her free-will---Other abductee had levelled allegation of abduction and zina against the accused---Both these statements when juxtaposed had, prima facie, made the case against the accused doubtful requiring further inquiry into the matter---Benefit of doubt, howsoever slight, had to be given to accused even at bail stage---Nothing was to be recovered from the accused and their further detention behind the bars would not be useful for the prosecution---bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
2012 YLR 633 SINDH KASHIF RAZA State
Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-b / 506(2)/ 342/34---Abduction, criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Complainant had made two statements under S.164, Cr.P.C., one in favour of accused and the other against him---Was yet to be determined at the trial as to which statement was recorded according to the wishes of the complainant and which statement was recorded by force and compulsion---Co-accused more or less with the same allegation had already been granted bail ---Liberty of an innocent person is not to be curtailed unless proved otherwise---Pre-arrest bail could be extended to a person who did not, prima facie, appear to have committed a non-bail able offence or his guilt needed further probe within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Case against accused appeared to be reasonably doubtful---Complainant was not alleged to have been forced or seduced to illicit intercourse---No reasonable grounds were available to believe that accused had committed a non-bail able offence and at this stage his case required further inquiry---Pre-arrest bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-b / 506(2)/ 342/34---Abduction, criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Complainant had made two statements under S.164, Cr.P.C., one in favour of accused and the other against him---Was yet to be determined at the trial as to which statement was recorded according to the wishes of the complainant and which statement was recorded by force and compulsion---Co-accused more or less with the same allegation had already been granted bail ---Liberty of an innocent person is not to be curtailed unless proved otherwise---Pre-arrest bail could be extended to a person who did not, prima facie, appear to have committed a non-bail able offence or his guilt needed further probe within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Case against accused appeared to be reasonably doubtful---Complainant was not alleged to have been forced or seduced to illicit intercourse---No reasonable grounds were available to believe that accused had committed a non-bail able offence and at this stage his case required further inquiry---Pre-arrest bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
2011 YLR 1366 LAHORE ( ZAFAR IQBAL
V/s State)
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-b & 376---Kidnapping, abduction or inducing woman to compel for marriage and rape---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of----Accused was no more required for the purpose of investigation in the matter--Main accused had already been allowed bail after arrest---Case of accused who was witness of Nikah, was at better footing than the case of main accused who had been allowed bail ---Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest, were entirely different--Humiliation and unjustified harassment was a sine qua non for prearrest bail , besides the malafide of the complainant or the Police---Where arrest of accused was not necessary requirement of the Investigating Agency, sending accused behind the bars only for the reason that he could be released on bail after his arrest was altogether unjustified---Court while deciding such like cases, must avoid to be a party to please/satisfy the ego of the complainant party---Ad intern pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-b & 376---Kidnapping, abduction or inducing woman to compel for marriage and rape---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of----Accused was no more required for the purpose of investigation in the matter--Main accused had already been allowed bail after arrest---Case of accused who was witness of Nikah, was at better footing than the case of main accused who had been allowed bail ---Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest, were entirely different--Humiliation and unjustified harassment was a sine qua non for prearrest bail , besides the malafide of the complainant or the Police---Where arrest of accused was not necessary requirement of the Investigating Agency, sending accused behind the bars only for the reason that he could be released on bail after his arrest was altogether unjustified---Court while deciding such like cases, must avoid to be a party to please/satisfy the ego of the complainant party---Ad intern pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Ss.365-b /376---Abduction and rape---bail , grant of---Accused was not named in
the F.I.R.---Abductee was stated to have solemnized marriage with the accused
and sought protection of law to live with him as his wife---Accused had also
filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights for allowing the abductee to
live with him as his wife---On the other hand statements of the alleged
abductee recorded under Ss.161 and 164, Cr.P.C. involving the accused in the
offence, were not supported by her medico legal report---Prima facie, case of
accused needed further probe within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr. P. C. ---bail
was allowed to accused in circumstances.( 2011 MLD 1020 lAHORE MUKHTAR AHMAD
State)
LikeShow
More Reactions
Hi, What a nice post! We inform you that we are providing the bail bonds services. If you need any help we are ready here https://coastbailbonds.com/irvine/bail-bonds/,
ReplyDeleteThanks