ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted the post-arrest bail application of accused Muhammad Irfan, also known as Irfan Shehzad, who is allegedly involved in a case of marrying a girl under the age of 16.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim heard the case. The complainant’s counsel argued that the accused, Muhammad Irfan alias Irfan Shehzad, not only abducted the girl but also stole gold and cash from the house.
The defence counsel contended that the girl entered into a court marriage with the accused of her own free will and that her statement in this regard is on record before a magistrate. He further stated that the girls who entered into court marriages are twin sisters and that the other sister was married three years ago. At this, Justice Hashim Kakar remarked that there was no need to draw out the family tree and asked whether the counsel wanted proceedings to be initiated against them as well. He noted that the girl had appeared before the magistrate thrice and had clearly stated that she married of her own free will.
The learned judge questioned that when both husband and wife are consenting, what then is the issue. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim asked whether the case would proceed under the Child Marriage Act and what punishment is prescribed under that law. The prosecutor informed the court that under the Child Marriage Act, punishment of up to 16 years and four months can be awarded. Later, the court accepted the post-arrest bail of accused Muhammad Irfan upon furnishing surety bonds worth one Rs100,000.
Meanwhile, a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim heard on Wednesday the acquittal petition of convicted prisoner Deen Muhammad in a murder case. Defence counsel, Rana Kashif, argued that the incident occurred in April 2012 in Sindh and that the FIR was registered with a delay of two days and seven hours. At this, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar remarked that this often happens in Sindh and that the accused benefit from delayed FIRs. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim inquired why no witness stated in their testimony that the police were contacted while shifting the injured person to the hospital after the incident. The learned counsel replied that police were contacted, but the FIR was not registered. Meanwhile, the court reserved its judgement on the petition.
