1982 P Cr (PLP)
FAIZ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | FAIZ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 P Cr (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 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1982 P Cr (PLP) (FAIZ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fiaz Baig Mirza for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 7th July, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 498 read with Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11
Bail-Abduction and rape-Abductee making divergent statements regarding her abduction and rape at different occasions - Accused allowed bail. Khalid Alvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Fiaz Baig Mirza for Petitioner. Khalid Alvi for the State. Date of hearing : 7th July, 1981. This is an application for bail on behalf of the petitioner in a case under section 10/l I of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station, Talamba on 23rd February, 1981. The allegations against the petitioner and others are that they enticed away Mst. Shamshad from Talamba. In her statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. she stated that she was taken first to village Mai Sapuran where the petitioner committed rape upon her and thereafter they took her to Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the F. I. R. and that on the face of it, it is a case of willingness. As against this learned counsel for the State opposes the application. He says that the offence is a heinous one and falls within the prohibitory clause. He further submits that the delay has been reasonably explained.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that Mst. Shamshad is aged 22 years. She was taken from place to place. Accord ing to her own statement rape was committed upon her at Basti Mai Sapuran and thereafter she accompanied the petitioner to Sargodha without having raised any hue and cry. I further find that the alleged abductee bad appeared before a Magistrate who had verified her affidavit in which she belied the prosecution case. Be that as it may, the fact remains there that the alleged abductee had made divergent statements. Without expressing opinion as to the merits of the case, I allow the petitioner bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Kabirwala. Bail allowed.