1987 PLP 1762 (MLD)
GHULAM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1762 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1762 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1762 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1762 (MLD) (GHULAM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Asghar Khan Rokhari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11--Bail--No allegation of Zina levelled against accused--Accused in jail and no more required for investigation--Bail granted. Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for grant of bail to Ghulam Akhtar petitioner in case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Zina) Ordinance, 1979 and section 368, P.P. C. registered at P.S. Mochh vide FIR No.212 dated 22-12-1986.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and two others abducted Mst. Rashida in order to subject her to illicit intercourse with Ata Muhammad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the case on account of his relationship with Ata Muhammad, the principal accused and that there are no allegations of zina against him. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that the alleged abductee in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. has involved the petitioner in an offence of abduction.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that there are no allegations of zina against the petitioner; that the prosecution case is that Ata Muhammad co-accused has committed zina with the alleged abductee; that the petitioner is the real nephew of Ata Muhammad co-accused; that the petitioner is in jail and is no more required for investigation. For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Mianwali. M.Y.H./G-53/L Bail granted.