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. 143/02 Dated: 4.5.02
U/s: 11-7/79 Islamic Law
P.S: Saddar Chichawatni

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 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.

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, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 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, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 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, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 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