2001 PLP 2840 (YLR)
SHAHADAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2840 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | SHAHADAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2840 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2840 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2840 (YLR) (SHAHADAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497.‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑F.I.R was lodged with four days' unexplained delay‑‑‑No material progress had been made since arrest of the accused in conclusion of the trial‑‑‑All the alleged eye‑witnesses of the occurrence were real brothers of the complainant‑‑‑Allegation against the accused, prima facie, had not been corroborated by any other independent witness‑‑‑No useful purpose could be served by keeping the accused behind the bars for an indefinite period‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Kh. Muhammad Rasool for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for Petitioner. Kh. Muhammad Rasool for the State. Shahadat son of Manak has been arrested in case F.I.R. No. 599, dated 28‑10‑2000 registered with Police Station Tandalianwala under section 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at the instance of Rajab Ali, with the allegation that the petitioner had developed illicit relations with Mst. Pathani, wife of the complainant and on 24‑10‑2000 at 10‑00 a.m., the complainant saw the present petitioner and Mst. Pathani in compromising position in his house. He raised hue and cry which attracted Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Anwar, brothers of the complainant. They tried to apprehend the petitioner but he escaped. In the morning Mst. Pathani also left the house of the complainant. After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad Camp at Tandalianwala vide order, dated 1‑8‑2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively. The F.I.R. was lodged with four days' unexplained delay. The petitioner was arrested on 30‑10‑2000 and no material progress has been made so far in conclusion of the trial. All the alleged eye‑witnesses of the occurrence are real brothers. Prima facie, the allegation has not been corroborated by any other independent witness. No useful purpose can be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, I am persuaded to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S‑303/L Bail granted.