2007 PLP 2913 (YLR)
Mst. NAZIRAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2913 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | Mst. NAZIRAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2913 (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 2007 PLP 2913 (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: 2007 PLP 2913 (YLR) (Mst. NAZIRAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Shehzad Khan Dhukkar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10(2) & 16
Allegation against accused was that she being already a married woman, had married with an other person
Accused, after completion of investigation had been sent to jail--.-Accused being woman her case was covered by the proviso to subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Mian Abdur Rasheed Rashid for the Complainant. Mujahid Wasti for the State. Subah Sadiq, A.S-I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.
Mst. Naziran-petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case' F.I.R. No.64, registered at Police Station, Saddar Khanpur, on 11-3-2005 for offence under section 16 of he Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. During investigation section 10(2) of the Ordinance was added.
2. Succinctly, the .allegation against the petitioner is that she in the existing of an earlier marriage remarried with Zafar Iqbal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case. Undeniably, the petitioner has been sent to jail after completion of investigation. The case of the petitioner being -woman is covered by the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, I admit tine petitioner to bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T/N-9/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted