Asad ullah vs State S — 2024 MLD 1341 GILGIT-BALTISTAN-SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Asad ullah VS State S.497---Penal Code ( XLV of 1860 ),Ss.365-B, 494, 34 & 109---Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, Art. 75(13)---Kidnapping or abduction, marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife, common intention, abetment---Bail, grant of---Rule of consistency---Similarly placed co-accused granted bail---Petitioner (accused) was not nominated in the FIR, instead he was implicated on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant recorded by the police nine days after the occurrence---Although the complainant in his said supplementary statement levelled allegation of abduction against the petitioner along with three co-accused persons yet record showed that the alleged victim /lady filed private complaint under Ss. 506 & 34, P.P.C. before the Court of Magistrate against her father and other relatives---Before the Court of Magistrate, victim/lady herself appeared and got her statement recorded in which (statement) she categorically contended that she was not abducted by any of the accused persons, rather, she out of her own free will contracted marriage with one of the co-accused persons, and she mentioned the date of her marriage which was about three months before the date of registration of the FIR---It was further contended by the alleged victim that her parents were not happy of her marriage and they were causing illegal harassment to her ,therefore, she filed the said private complaint against her father and other relatives---Alleged victim, in her said statement, further contented that before contracting marriage with co-accused, her Nikah was not solemnized with anyone---Keeping in view the said statement of the alleged abductee the offences under sections 365-B & 494, P.P.C., were not attracted against the petitioner---Record showed that four co-accused persons, with similar allegation , preferred their post arrest bail which was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge and the Chief Court---Case of the petitioner was at par with the case of aforesaid co-accused, therefore, the petitioner was also entitled for the same relief keeping in view the rule of consistency---Petitioner was behind the bars since his arrest and was no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation---No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period---Petitioner was admitted to post arrest bail.

Asad ullah vs State S — 2024 MLD 1341 GILGIT-BALTISTAN-SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD