P L D 1996 Lahore 45 (PLP)
Mst. ASIA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THESTATE ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1996 Lahore 45 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Khalid Paul Khawaja, J |
| Parties | Mst. ASIA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THESTATE ‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Lahore 45 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Lahore 45 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Khalid Paul Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Lahore 45 (PLP) (Mst. ASIA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THESTATE ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Azhar Chaudhry for Petitioner. Sarfraz Hussain for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ S. 497(l), first proviso ‑‑‑ Bail to a woman ‑‑‑ Woman is not entitled to the grant of bail as a right in every case ‑‑‑ Courts generally take lenient view while dealing with the bail applications of women and exercise discretion in their favour in suitable cases in the light of the first proviso to S.497(l), Cr.P.C.‑‑Such discretion, however, is to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979),S.11 ‑‑‑ Bail ‑‑‑ Accused had, prima facie, abducted eleven years' old minor daughter of the complainant and taken her to her husband‑‑‑Medico‑legal report of the victim girl had told a horrifying story of child who had been ravished by a maniac ‑‑‑ Reasonable grounds, thus, existed to believe that the accused was to a great extent responsible for the said traumatic episode and she was not entitled to the concession of bail merely on the ground of being a woman ‑‑‑ Accused was refused bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
On 4‑6‑1995 at Police Station Kotwali, District Sialkot a case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against Mst. Asia accused‑ at the instance of Shabbir alias Humayun complainant. It was alleged that on 1‑6‑1995 the aforesaid accused had abducted Mst. Rabia alias Bavi,‑the minor daughter of the complainant, through deceitful means for the purpose of Zina. 2.' Mst. Asia accused, petitioner herein, was arrested on 7‑6‑1995 and the abductee was recovered from her custody. The latter was produced before a Magistrate on the same day where she made a statement to the effect that the petitioner had abducted her and had taken her to Guiranwala where her husband Muhammad Younas committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her. The abductee was medically examined on the very day of her recovery and the medical officer was of the opinion that she has been raped. Muhammad Younas aforesaid, therefore, was also arrayed as an accused and subsequently arrested.
3. The petitioner has applied for her bail. 4. 1 have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the material available on record.
5. Bail is sought on the only ground that the petitioner is a woman against whom there was no allegation of Zina. A woman is not entitled to the grant of bail as a right in every case. Generally the Courts take lenient view while dealing with the bail application of women and exercise discretion in their favour in suitable cases in the light of the first proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. However, this discretion is to be exercised ‑keeping in view the circumstances and the facts of the case. In the present case there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that it was she who had abducted Mst. Rabia alias Bavi the minor daughter of the complainant an(I taken her to her husband in Gujranwala. The abductee is hardly 11 years of age. Her medico‑legal report dated 7‑6‑1995 tells a horrifying story of a child who has been ravished by a maniac. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is 'to a great extent responsible for this traumatic episode. She is not entitled' to the concession of bail in this case merely on the ground that she is a woman. Her bail application is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑905/`L Bail refused