2003 P Cr (PLP)
GULZAR alias GULZAR AHMED ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zahid Kurban Alavi, J |
| Parties | GULZAR alias GULZAR AHMED ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zahid Kurban Alavi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (GULZAR alias GULZAR AHMED ‑‑‑ Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.354‑A/337‑A(i)/504/34‑‑ Bail‑‑‑Case against accused, according to his counsel, did not fall under S.354‑A, P.P.C. as the victim was not exposed to public view in a naked condition and his intention being only to outrage her modesty S.354, P.P.C. was attracted in the case which was punishable with two years' R.I.‑‑‑Husband of the victim lady had received only a simple injury‑‑ Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Ajmal alias Teddy v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 132 ref. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ajmal alias Teddy v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 132 ref. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.‑G. for the State. The F.I.R. has been registered against the accused under sections 354‑A, 337‑A(i), 504, 34, P.P.C. in connection with Crime No.100 of 2002 at Police Station Mehar. Apparently the case is of attempt of Zina and plain reading of the F.I.R. shows that the accused tried to open Nara, but on her cries family members rushed to across and the co‑accused after inflicting simple injury on the husband of the lady, ran away. Learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the case of Muhammad Ajmal alias Teddy v. State reported in 1994 PCr.LJ 132 where in a similar situation an attempt to strip the lady was made and the injury being simple bail was granted. Counsel appearing for the State however, points out that the case was not of section 354‑A, as, the lady was not exposed to public view after striping her. According to him, the case would fall under section 354 as it could be safely assumed that it was the intention of the party to outrage the modesty of the lady. In a case registered under section 354, A P.P.C. the punishment is only two years. The other sections used in this case 337‑A(i), 504, 34, P.P.C. which has been attributed to the co- accused, show that simple injury has been caused to the husband of the lady. Under the circumstances, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction off the trial Court. N.H.Q./G‑125/K Bail allowed.