2005 PLP 487 (YLR)
YASEEN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 487 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | YASEEN‑‑‑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 487 (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 487 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 487 (YLR) (YASEEN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑ Complainant though in her F.I.R. had alleged that accused had subjected her to Zina‑bil‑Jabr, but subsequently she had sworn affidavit to the effect that she had named accused in F.I.R. merely on basis of suspicion due to darkness of the night while accused was not the real culprit‑‑‑Such fact was also mentioned in the order of Trial Court passed on bail application of accused and police officer in the Court on query had also submitted that he had come to know that parties had compromised‑‑‑Due to said deposition of complainant in her affidavit, case against accused had become one of further inquiry into his guilt covered under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was stated to be previous non‑convict‑‑ Accused, in circumstances was entitled to bail. Qasim and another v The State 1996 MLD 108 Lah. ref. Nizam‑ud‑Din Arif for the State. Liaquat Ali, S.‑I. with Police Record.
Judgment & Decree
Yaseen, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.94 dated 7‑5‑2003 under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood). Ordinance No.VII of 1979 registered with Police Station, Eminabad, District, Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 6‑5‑2003 at 9‑00 p.m., he had subjected the complainant Mst. Haneefan Bibi to Zina‑bil‑Jabr in the field within the area of the Police Station, Eminabad, District, Gujranwala.
3. The bail has been sought by him on the ground that he has falsely been roped in; that Mst. Haneefan Bibi complainant has sworn affidavit to the effect that she has named him as accused merely on the basis of suspicion due to darkness of the night while he is not the real culprit and so she has no objection on the grant of bail to him; and that he is behind the bars and previous non‑convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; and that he has subjected the complainant to Zina‑bil‑Jabr.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. Though, there is allegation against him in the F.I.R. that he has subjected the complainant to Zina‑bil‑Jabr but there is with the petition her affidavit to the effect that on suspicion due to darkness of the night she has mentioned his name in the F.I.R. as the person who has committed the said act with her, while he is not the real culprit.
7. I find that there is mention of her such affidavit in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala dated 8‑7‑2003 passed on his post‑arrest bail petition there. The S.‑I. present in Court on query has also submitted that he has come to know that the parties have reached to compromise.
8. Due to the above deposition of the complainant in her affidavit, the case against the petitioner certainly has become one of further inquiry into his guilt. The same therefore, is amply covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard reliance is placed upon the case of Qasim and another v. The State 1996 MLD 108 Lahore.
9. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non‑convict.
10. In these circumstances, he is entitled to bail. The petition is therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. H.B.T./Y‑32/L Bail granted.