1988 MLD 1829 (PLP)
MUSHTAQUE AHMAD WARSI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 MLD 1829 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | MUSHTAQUE AHMAD WARSI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 MLD 1829 (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 1988 MLD 1829 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 MLD 1829 (PLP) (MUSHTAQUE AHMAD WARSI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad Shehzad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 364 & 366‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. lodged with inordinate and unexplained delay of one month and seven days‑ Specific direction of High Court to dispose of !vial within two months not followed‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner Mushtaque Ahmad Warsi has moved this bail petition under Section 497/498, Cr. P.C. in a case registered against him under Section 364/366 P.P.C. read with Section 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Mustafabad, Lahore, vide F.I.R. No. 66 dated 9‑4‑1987. .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay of one month and seven days in lodging the F.I.R. and no explanation for this delay has been given by the prosecution. Learned counsel stated that challan in the cast was submitted before the Court on 30‑6‑1987 and that tile trial of the petitioner has not yet commenced. Learned counsel maintained that this is a case of solitary statement having been made by the prosecutrix in the case, which is not enough for the purpose of conviction. Learned counsel submitted that the result of the Chemical Examiner on the vaginal swabs has not been received so far. Learned counsel further stated that earlier direction given to the trial Court for concluding the trial within two months has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and says that there is enough material to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Challan in the case was submitted on 30‑6‑1987 and since then no evidence has been produced by the prosecution. There is no explanation whatsoever available on record to justify the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Further, a spec direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 13‑7‑1987 under which the trial Court was to dispose of the trial within two months. It appears that this direction has not been followed. In consequence the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore. Learned trial Court is directed to explain as to why the earlier direction issued by this Court has not been complied with. S.G.D./M‑639/L , Bail allowed.