1984 P Cr (PLP)
ATTA MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ATTA MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (ATTA MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Taj Muhammad Khan Langah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/11 -Bail, grant of-Petitioner, accused of offences under S. 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), in Jail for last 6 months yet challan not submitted so far-Prosecutrix also not levelling charge of Zina in her statement recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C.-Held : A fit case for grant of bail, in circumstances. Zafar Mahmood for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail on behalf of Atta Muhammad peti tioner in a case under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforce ment of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered, at Police Station, Kahror Pacca, vide F. I. R. No. 37, dated 28th February, 1982.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner alongwith Azam co- accused abducted Mst. Naziran in order to subject her to sexual intercourse on 10th February, 1982 at Maghrabwela.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is in jail for the last more than 6 months yet the challan has not been submitted so far. The learned State counsel has, however, opposed this application.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find (as state by Maqbool A. S.-I.) that although the petitioner was arrested on 24th March, 1982 yet the challan has not been submitted. I further find that Mst. Naziran in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. has pot levelled the charges of Zina against this petitioner. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for the grant of bail. Accordingly the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran. It would, however, be open to the State/complainant to move applica tion for the cancellation of bail after the challan is submitted. S. G. D. Bail granted