2005 PLP 649 (YLR)
Mst. SAJIDA alias SAJO‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 649 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Mst. SAJIDA alias SAJO‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 649 (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 2005 PLP 649 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 649 (YLR) (Mst. SAJIDA alias SAJO‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Arshad Bhatti for Petitioner along with Petitioner in person.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/13/14‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑ Accused had been declared innocent by Investigating Officer‑‑‑Medical evidence was also in favour of accused which had contradicted story of prosecution‑‑‑There being reasonable grounds for believing false implication of accused, possibility of same could not be ruled out‑‑‑Such fact had brought case of accused under the phrase 'further inquiry "‑‑‑Accused being a woman her case fell under Proviso 1 of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Ad‑interim bail already granted to accused was confirmed accordingly. Munir Ahmad v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 314; Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State 2004 Cr.LJ 295; Shaukat Ali v. The State 2004 YLR 1798; Rehmat Ullah's case 1970 SCMR 299; Mohsin's case 1977 PCr.LJ 159 and Abdul Qadir's case 1980 PCr.LJ 397 ref. Najam‑ul‑Saqib Raaj, State Officer along with Ali Hussain, A.S.‑I., Police Station, Jaranwala.
Judgment & Decree
Najam‑ul‑Saqib Raaj, State Officer along with Ali Hussain, A.S.‑I., Police Station, Jaranwala. The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No.658 of 2004, which was registered at Police Station, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad on 18‑6‑2004 under sections 10/13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that contents of the F.I.R. do not reveal that the petitioner has committed the offence. He further submits that medical evidence is also supporting the cause of the petitioner and dislodged the contents of the F.I.R. He further submits that Investigating Officer has found the petitioner innocent. He further submits that basically there is a dispute between the petitioner and her husband. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for bail in view of Proviso I of section 497, Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: ‑‑ Munir Ahmad v. The State 2004 PCr. LJ 314; Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 295; Shaukat Ali v. The State 2004 YLR 1798.
3. The learned State counsel submits that medical evidence is not in favour of the prosecution and the petitioner is also found innocent by the Investigation Officer in the last Zimni dated 23‑10‑2004.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner has been declared innocent by the Investigation Officer coupled with the fact that the medical evidence is also in favoure of the petitioner which contradicts the story of the prosecution, therefore, there are reasonable grounds for believing false implication hence possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. This fact brings the case of the petitioner under the phrase "further inquiry". In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down in Rehmat Ullah's case 1970 SCMR 299; Mohsin's case 1977 PCr.LJ 159 and Abdul Qadir's case 1980 PCr.LJ
397. The case of the petitioner also falls under Proviso I of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the ad interim bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to her furnishing fresh surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge concerned. H.B.T./S‑269/L Ad interim bail confirmed.