PESHAWAR, June 6: The Peshawar High Court was informed on May 06 by a counsel that police had been violating amendments to the law which limited their powers in dealing with cases of women under the hudood law. Advocate Asthagfirullah Khan, appearing for a woman petitioner, Basreena, contended that after incorporation of section 156-B in the Criminal Procedure Code on Jan 11, 2005 police could no longer arrest a woman under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, without prior permission of the court.
He said that it was mandatory that investigation in such like cases should not be conducted by an officer below the rank of the superintendent of police. Mr Khan argued that the police had been violating the provisions and women had been arrested without courts’ permission and investigation had been conducted by low ranking officers including assistant sub-inspectors and sub-inspectors.
Ms Basreena had filed a writ petition seeking quashment of a case registered against her under the hudood law. She contended that her trial court was in Karak, a conservative southern district in the NWFP, and she had been facing threats from her family members. A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijazul Hassan and Justice Raj Mohammad Khan put on notice the SHO of the Takht-i-Nusrathi police station in Karak with the direction that he should appear on next date of hearing.
Mr Khan contended that initially the FIR was registered by the petitioner’s mother, Hayat, on Sept 14, 2005, against Salahuddin Khan, now husband of the petitioner, and she had charged him of attacking her residence and forcibly taking away the petitioner. Later, he stated the woman was also made co-accused in the case as she had contracted marriage with Salahuddin.
Salahuddin has claimed that the woman had left residence of her parents with her free will and married him in Sept last. Mr Khan stated that on Feb 11 the police produced the woman before the court of an additional district and sessions judge who ordered that she should be shifted to Darul Aman. The counsel said that an interesting situation emerged after medical examination of the woman was conducted on the bases of which she was made co-accused in the case and sent to prison. He said that the medical examination showed that she was pregnant and the duration of her pregnancy did not correspond with her marriage date.
Later, she was granted bail by the sessions court and her husband was released on bail by the high court on April 7. The bench observed that when charge-sheet against the couple was submitted before the court they should go there and face the trial. The counsel argued that the couple was on the run and had been facing threats from the family members. He added that the petitioner was in advanced stage of pregnancy and she could not frequently move to Karak for trial.
The counsel contended that the entire proceedings conducted by the police were illegal as they had violated section 156-B of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench inquired from him about medical examination of the petitioner, which suggested that she was pregnant before her Nikkah. The counsel contended that the ultra sound report could not be fully relied upon. He referred to a judgment of the SC in that regard, stating that the examination could give a tentative date and not exact date.
Source: Dawn
Date:6/7/2006
