M.afzal (crl

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. ___________/CB/2002 Muhammad Afzal S/o Khushi Muhammad, caste Malik, R/o Chak No. 110/12-L, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. ……PETITIONER

VERSUS 1.

The State.

2.

Nazir Ahmad @ Malang

Bharian by caste, R/o 110/12-L,

3.

Kalsoom alias Shamman

Tehsil Chichawatni, Distt. Sahiwal

D/o Nazir Ahmad

PETITION U/S 497 (5) CR.P.C. In case: F.I.R. No. U/s: P.S:

143/02 Dated: 11-7/79 Islamic Law Saddar Chichawatni

4.5.02

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the names and address of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2.

That the above-mentioned case was got registered by the petitioners against the respondents No. 2 & 3 along-with one Shahid, the son of the respondent No. 2, being accused for the abduction of his minor daughter Sumera Afzal, stating that he

is a permanent resident of Chak No. 110/12-L; and presently having a small Karyana shop in city Chichawatni. In his adjacent house, Nazir Ahmad alias Malang S/o unknown, caste Bharian is living. On 30.4.2002 at 2:00 P.M. Kasloom alias Shamman daughter of Nazir Ahmad called his daughter at her home, her daughter did not come back. Nazir Ahmad could not satisfy on the inquiry of complainant. The son Shahid and daughter Kalsoom alias Shamman were missing from the house. The complainant when contacted Nazir Ahmad along-with (i) Muhammad Latif S/o Lal Din, caste Malik, (ii) Riaz S/o Abdul Jabbar, caste Rajput, resident of locality, he obtained time, but did not return her daughter. He alleged that her daughter is abducted by Nazir Ahmad, Shahid and Kalsoom, hence, this case. Copy of F.I.R. with better copy is Annex “A & A/1”. 3.

That the daughter of the petitioner (abductee) namely Sumera Afzal was recovered from the possession of the respondents. Both the respondents No. 2 & 3 were arrested, while Shahid accused is still absconding. It is pertinent to point out that the Shahid absconder/accused sought pre-arrest bail through Crl. Misc. No. 1254/B/2002, which was conditionally granted till 15.5.2002 to approach the A.S.J. Chichawatni, but after that he did not bother to act under the law.

4.

That the respondent No. 3 filed a post-arrest bail petition before Mr. Zafar Iqbal Ch., the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chicha Watni; and the concession of bail was granted vide order dated 21.5.2002 and the same relief was granted to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 29.5.2002. Copy of bail application with order for respondent No. 3 is Annex “B & B/1” while bail application with order dated 29.5.2002 for respondent No. 2 is Annex “C & C/1”

5.

That the orders dated 21.5.2002 & 29.5.2002 being interrelated are hereby impugned, inter-alia on the following: -

GROUNDS i)

That both the orders are against the justice and natural justice.

ii)

That both the orders are against the facts and circumstances of the case.

iii)

That there is concealment/mis-statement of facts in the application of respondent No. 3. The age of respondent No. 3 as per birth certificate was more than Seventeen years, while misstated in bail application as Twelve years. Copy of certificate is Annex “D”.

iv)

That the learned lower court could not take the notice of defective investigation. After the recovery of abductee the police neither got recorded her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., nor got medically examined. Actually it was case under section 11/10 (3) of Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance, 1979.

v)

That the learned trial court miserably failed to take the notice of punishment provided under the law for the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. (life), but stated in order, that the offence does not fall within the preview of prohibitory clause.

vi)

That the ground of further inquiry argued by the respondent No. 3 was met by petitioner, by producing the copy of suit for jactication filed by the abductee, but the learned trial court even not mentioned about it in the order. Copy of suit is available as Annex “E”.

vii)

That for the grant of concession of bail to respondent No. 2, the learned lower court adopted the rule of consistency, which was absolutely not applicable because the respondent No. 2 was a lady and even vital role was played by respondent No. 2 in the incident.

viii) That both the order were illegal, unlawful, unwarranted and void ab-initio. ix)

That both the orders are groundless, perverse capricious and a result of haste.

x)

That both the orders have caused a great miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that both the orders dated 21.5.2002 and 29.5.2002 respectively may please the set aside, being groundless,

perverse,

capricious,

illegal,

unlawful, unwarranted and void ab-initio. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also be granted to the petitioner to meet the ends of justice and equity. Humble Petitioner, Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

Certificate: As per instructions of the client, this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate Note: Office is requested to place the record of the Crl. Misc. No. 1254/B/02 along-with this petition. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. ___________/CB/2002 Muhammad Afzal

Vs.

State etc.

INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1

Urgent Form

2

Petition U/s 497 (5) Cr.P.C.

3

Affidavit

4

Copy of F.I.R. & better Copy.

A & A/1

5

Copy of bail application & order.

B & B/1

6

Copy of bail application & order.

C & C/1

7

Copy of certificate.

D

8

Copy of suit.

E

9

Dispensation application.

10

Affidavit

11

Power of attorney. PETITIONER

Dated: ____________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2002 In Crl. Misc. No. ______/CB/2002 Muhammad Afzal

Vs.

State etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the main petition. 2. That certified copies of Annexes “

” are not

readily available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of the original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. ______/CB/2002 Muhammad Afzal

Vs.

State etc.

PETITION U/S 497 (5) CR.P.C. AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Afzal S/o Khushi Muhammad, caste Malik, R/o Chak No. 110/12-L, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That the names and address of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the above-mentioned case was got registered by the petitioners against the respondents No. 2 & 3 along-with one Shahid, the son of the respondent No. 2, being accused for the abduction of his minor daughter Sumera Afzal, stating that he is a permanent resident of Chak No. 110/12-L; and presently having a small Karyana shop in city Chichawatni. In his adjacent house, Nazir Ahmad alias Malang S/o unknown, caste Bharian is living. On 30.4.2002 at 2:00 P.M. Kasloom alias Shamman daughter of Nazir Ahmad called his daughter at her home, her daughter did not come back. Nazir Ahmad could not satisfy on the inquiry of complainant. The son Shahid and daughter Kalsoom alias Shamman were missing from the house. The complainant when contacted Nazir Ahmad along-with (i) Muhammad Latif S/o Lal Din, caste Malik, (ii) Riaz S/o Abdul Jabbar, caste Rajput, resident of locality, he obtained time, but did not return her

daughter. He alleged that her daughter is abducted by Nazir Ahmad, Shahid and Kalsoom, hence, this case. Copy of F.I.R. with better copy is Annex “A & A/1”. 3. That the daughter of the petitioner (abductee) namely Sumera Afzal was recovered from the possession of the respondents. Both the respondents No. 2 & 3 were arrested, while Shahid accused is still absconding. It is pertinent to point out that the Shahid absconder/accused sought pre-arrest bail through Crl. Misc. No. 1254/B/2002, which was conditionally granted till 15.5.2002 to approach the A.S.J. Chichawatni, but after that he did not bother to act under the law. 4. That the respondent No. 3 filed a post-arrest bail petition before Mr. Zafar Iqbal Ch., the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chicha Watni; and the concession of bail was granted vide order dated 21.5.2002 and the same relief was granted to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 29.5.2002. Copy of bail application with order for respondent No. 3 is Annex “B & B/1” while bail application with order dated 29.5.2002 for respondent No. 2 is Annex “C & C/1”. 5. That the orders dated 21.5.2002 & 29.5.2002 being inter-related are hereby impugned, inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

That both the orders are against the justice and natural justice.

ii)

That both the orders are against the facts and circumstances of the case.

iii)

That there is concealment/mis-statement of facts in the application of respondent No. 3. The age of respondent No. 3 as per birth certificate was more than Seventeen years, while misstated in bail application as Twelve years. Copy of certificate is Annex “D”.

iv)

That the learned lower court could not take the notice of defective investigation. After the recovery of abductee the police neither got recorded her statement U/s 164

Cr.P.C., nor got medically examined. Actually it was case under section 11/10 (3) of Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance, 1979. v)

That the learned trial court miserably failed to take the notice of punishment provided under the law for the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. (life), but stated in order, that the offence does not fall within the preview of prohibitory clause.

vi)

That the ground of further inquiry argued by the respondent No. 3 was met by petitioner, by producing the copy of suit for jactication filed by the abductee, but the learned trial court even not mentioned about it in the order. Copy of suit is available as Annex “E”.

vii)

That for the grant of concession of bail to respondent No. 2, the learned lower court adopted the rule of consistency, which was absolutely not applicable because the respondent No. 2 was a lady and even vital role was played by respondent No. 2 in the incident.

viii) That both the order were illegal, unlawful, unwarranted and void ab-initio. ix)

That both the orders are groundless, perverse capricious and a result of haste.

x)

That both the orders have caused a great miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT