1989 PLP 4679 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4679 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | S.M.Zubair, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑‑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 4679 (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 4679 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: S.M.Zubair, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4679 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akbar Tarrar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. was recorded about a year before‑‑Challan had not been submitted‑‑F.I.R. was delayed by four days and was not corroborated by any independent evidence‑‑Accused could not be detained by way of punishment‑ Bail allowed in circumstances. Rao Muhammad Khalil for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 19th July, 1989. The petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No.272/88 dated 27‑9‑1988 registered at Police Station Miana Gondal seeks to be released on bail.
2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner along with his co‑accused committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with Mst. Shahnaz wife of the complain4nt on 24‑9‑1988 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 27‑9‑1988.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case the F.I.R. was recorded after the delay of four days and challan has not been submitted so far. Since then the petitioner is behind the bars but so far no progress has been shown in the trial and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars by way of punishment. Learned counsel further contends that there is no eye‑witness of the occurrence and there is long standing enmity between the petitioner and the complainant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the State who has vehemently opposed the bail application and on the basis of record he has argued that the victim received certain bruises on her person though their duration has not been mentioned in the medico legal report.
5. Learned counsel for the State conceded that the challan has not been submitted in the Court of law and the evidence has not yet commenced.
6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that without going deep into the merits and demerits of the case, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars by way of punishment as the prosecution has failed to submit the challan, the case of the petitioner is also of further inquiry because, there is no independent corroboration of the version given in the F.I.R. which is obviously belated one.
7. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to bail, hence is admitted to bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Mandi Baha‑ud -Din. S.A./M‑1630/L Bail allowed.