2001 PLP 1359 (YLR)
Mst. AMIRAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1359 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | Mst. AMIRAN — 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 1359 (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 1359 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1359 (YLR) (Mst. AMIRAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syeda Nazli Naz for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(1)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16-- Bail, grant of
F.I.R. showed that the accused left the house of the complainant with her own accord
No evidence regarding illicit relationship between the accused and the co-accused existed except the wild allegation of the complainant
Delay was of five days in reporting the matter to the police
Offence under S.16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, could not be applicable against the accused in absence of any supporting evidence-- Offence under S. 380, P. P. C. was not punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more and did not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of 5.497, Cr. P. C.-- Allegation against the accused that she took away ornaments with her, proved to be baseless
Accused being a lady, her case was covered under proviso 1 to S. 497, Cr. P. C. -- Accused was granted bail, in circumstances. Abdul Rasheed Chaudhry for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Rasheed Chaudhry for the State. Mst. Amiran daughter of Abdul Rehman, petitioner, has sought her post arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 42 of 2001, dated 13-2-2001 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with section 380, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Shujabad, District Multan.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, at the very outset contends that the record of the case is not available.
3. Admittedly, the F.I.R. is available on the tile alongwith the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who dismissed the bail application of the petitioner.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no other record is required for the decision of this petition. I see eye to eye with the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The instant case was registered on the statement of one Abdul Aziz husband of the petitioner. According to the allegation levelled in the F.I.R., the petitioner had developed relationship with one Muhammad Bilal and on 8-2-2001 when the complainant was out side from his house, the petitioner left his house alongwith some ornaments and cash worth Rs.1,14,
000. It was informed by the P.Ws that they had seen the petitioner going alongwith Muhammad Bilal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the F.I.R. and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, with their respective assistance.
7. It has been admitted in the F.I.R. that the petitioner left the house of the complainant with her own accord. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding the relation ship between the petitioner and Muhammad Bilal, except the wild allegation of the complainant. There is delay of five days in reporting the matter to the police. The petitioner is a woman and is in Jail. The offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, cannot be applicable as such against the petitioner. Similarly, the offence under section 380, P.P.C. is not punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, and does not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the allegation against the petitioner that she took away ornaments with her is baseless as normally the ornaments belong to the lady of the house. The petitioner being a lady, her case is also covered under the proviso 1 to section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail, subject to her tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. Fifty Thousand, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-274/L Bail granted.