2000 PLP 1856 (YLR)
Mst. RUBINA PERVEEN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1856 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | Mst. RUBINA PERVEEN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1856 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1856 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1856 (YLR) (Mst. RUBINA PERVEEN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Arshad Ali Chohan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11-- Pre-arrest interim bail
Confirmation-- Accused who was granted interim pre-arrest bail, had sought confirmation thereof on ground that she being on interim pre-arrest bail for the last eight months had not misused concession of bail in any manner
It was yet to be decided whether accused was wife of "G" or "I"
Accused though was bound to join and associate with investigation, but she being a woman, it would not be in the interest of justice to keep her in confinement just as a matter of punishment
Case against accused being of further inquiry, interim bail already granted to accused, was confirmed. Muhammad Saleem Shakoor for the State. Tahir Mehmood for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner claims herself to be wife of Imdad Hussain, as such she has committed no offence, and is entitled to the concession of bail. Further submits that she is on interim pre-arrest bail for the last about 8 months and has not misused the concession in any manner. Also submits that the petitioner being woman, there are different parameters to consider her application for bail. The bail is opposed by learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner's alleged Nikah with Imdad could not be verified; that she has not joined the investigation hence she is not entitled to the concession of bail.
2. It is true that the petitioner being accused is bound to join and associate with the investigation. As regards the allegation that she is wife of Gulzar or Imdad, it needs further probe and inquiry and it will not be in the interest of justice to keep her in confinement just as a matter of punishment. In view of this matter, the interim bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed. She will submit fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
3. In case the petitioner does not join the investigation or misuses the concession in any manner, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel her bail. Disposed of with the above observations. H.B.T./R-21/L Bail confirmed.