2005 PLP 1663 (YLR)
ALI RAZA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1663 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | ALI RAZA — 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 1663 (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 1663 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1663 (YLR) (ALI RAZA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Amin Nayyar for Petitioner.
- Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there was no kidnapping of the victim Muhammad Usman from the lawful guardianship of his father, therefore, provision of section 12/7/79 of Hadood Ordinance, 1979 is not attracted. Adds that complainant himself admitted in the F.I.R. that the petitioner made an attempt to commit sodomy therefore, provision of section 511, P.P.C. is attracted which provides half punishment provided under section 377, P.P.C. and therefore, the case does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. Adds that there is no medical evidence available on the file to show that sodomy was committed with the victim Muhammad Usman.
- 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their assistance. There is no allegation of kidnapping of, victim Muhammad Usman. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that sections 12/7/79 of Hadood Ordinance, 1979 is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case because there was no allegation of kidnapping the victim. Section 511, P.P.C. is an attempt to commit sodomy and is punishable under section 377, P.P.C. which provides half of the punishment to be awarded under section 377, P.P.C., therefore, offence does not fall under the, prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. Grant of bail is a rule and refusal is all exception as held in case reported as Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34. There is no medical evidence on the record, therefore, case of the petitioner is of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In view of the, above said facts, I am inclined to, grant bail to the petitioner. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 397 & 511--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 12
Provisions of S.12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, were not attracted in the case as no allegation of kidnapping the victim was leveled against the accused
Complainant having himself admitted in F.I.R. that accused had made an attempt to commit sodomy, S. 511, P.P.C. was attracted in the case which had provided half of punishment to be awarded under S. 377, P. P. C.
Offence against accused, in circumstances, did not fall under prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. No medical evidence was on record to show that, sodomy was committed with the victim
Case against accused being of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C., bail was granted to accused. Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 ref. Sohail Tariq, State counsel along with M. Nazir Awan, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
Ali Raza, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.893 dated 23-11-2003 under sections 377/511, P.P.C. read with section 12/7/79 Hadood Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station, North Cantt.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has made an attempt to commit sodomy with Muhammad Usman son of the complainant Muhammad Habib. Petitioner applied for grant of bail to the trial Court as well as to Additional Sessions Judge . which was declined to him, hence this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there was no kidnapping of the victim Muhammad Usman from the lawful guardianship of his father, therefore, provision of section 12/7/79 of Hadood Ordinance, 1979 is not attracted. Adds that complainant himself admitted in the F.I.R. that the petitioner made an attempt to commit sodomy therefore, provision of section 511, P.P.C. is attracted which provides half punishment provided under section 377, P.P.C. and therefore, the case does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. Adds that there is no medical evidence available on the file to show that sodomy was committed with the victim Muhammad Usman.
4. Conversely, bail has been opposed by the State counsel on the ground that the heinous offence of sodomy under sections 377/511, P.P.C., has been committed and the petitioner has been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their assistance. There is no allegation of kidnapping of, victim Muhammad Usman. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that sections 12/7/79 of Hadood Ordinance, 1979 is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case because there was no allegation of kidnapping the victim. Section 511, P.P.C. is an attempt to commit sodomy and is punishable under section 377, P.P.C. which provides half of the punishment to be awarded under section 377, P.P.C., therefore, offence does not fall under the, prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. Grant of bail is a rule and refusal is all exception as held in case reported as Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC
34. There is no medical evidence on the record, therefore, case of the petitioner is of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In view of the, above said facts, I am inclined to, grant bail to the petitioner. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-382/L Bail granted.