1989 PLP 763 (MLD)
SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 763 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 763 (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 1989 PLP 763 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 763 (MLD) (SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hakim Sahota for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10, 11, 13, 14 & 18‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused was named in F.I.R. and was alleged to have been apprehended at the spot‑‑Raiding party saw accused indulging in sexual intercourse‑‑Bail refused. Akhtar Shabbir Addl. A.‑G. and Abdus Samad Hashmi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10, 11, 13, 14 & 18‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused was named in F.I.R. and was alleged to have been apprehended at the spot‑‑Raiding party saw accused indulging in sexual intercourse‑‑Bail refused. Abdul Hakim Sahota for Petitioner. Akhtar Shabbir Addl. A.‑G. and Abdus Samad Hashmi for the State. A case under section 10/11/13/14/18 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, stands registered against the petitioner and another with Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 2‑2‑1989, at about 12‑30 at night he was indulging in sexual intercourse with his co‑accused Mst. Saira in a shop. The police in pursuance of information raided the said shop and the petitioner alongwith his co‑accused were caught red handed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is false. Submits that it is not indicated in the F.I.R. whether the police knocked at the door or they just entered into the shop. Submits that the petitioner is a married person having six children, therefore, cannot be expected to have indulged in such activity.
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. The petitioner i named in the F.I.R. and is alleged to have been apprehended at the spot. The raiding party saw the petitioner indulging in sexual intercourse, therefore, it cannot be held that it is a case of further inquiry.
3. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./S/387/L Petition dismissed.