2006 PLP 2778 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AMIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2778 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz- Zaman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2778 (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 2006 PLP 2778 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz- Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2778 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AMIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rai Muhammad Tufail Khan Kharl for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 16
Accused was found innocent during investigation
Alleged abductee during investigation in her statement under 5.161, Cr. P. C. had specifically stated that she herself had gone with co-accused who later on obtained her thumb-impression on some blank papers
Counsel for accused had placed on record photocopy of _Nikah Nama in support of his arguments that nobody had ever abducted alleged abductee
Habeas Corpus petition for recovery of alleged abductee and co-accused was moved before High Court
Said case was disposed of and custody of alleged abductee was handed over to her mother because on making queries, alleged abductee did not answer as to where she wanted to go nor she made any statement before High Court qua involvement of accused
Such circumstances were sufficient to bring case of accused within the folds of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Shahid Qayyum for the State with Javed Akhtar, A.S.-I. Rana Abdul Majid Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM?UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 931 of 2005, dated 22-10-2005 for the offence under sections 10/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at? Police Station_ Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad. 2.? In brief the allegation against the petitioner is that on 12-10-2005 at 10-00 p.m. he along with other co-accused had abducted Mst. Shamila wife of the complainant for the purpose of fornication. During the investigation petitioner was arrested on 8-11-2005. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala, vide order dated 6-2-2006, hence this petition. ???????????
3. Heard. File perused. Not only that during the investigation petitioner was found innocent record of the case also reveals that during the investigation Mst. Shamila (abductee) while making statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. specifically stated that she herself had gone with the co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Naeem who later on obtained her thumb-impressions on some blank papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record photocopy of Nikahnama in support of his arguments that nobody had ever abducted Mst. Shamila. I have also observed that habeas corpus petition i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No.21/H of 2006 titled "Mushtaq v. S.H.O. etc." for the recovery of Mst. Shamila and co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Naeem was moved before this Court. The said case was disposed of on 10-2-2006 and the custody of Mst. Shamila was handed over to her mother because on reported queries Mst. Shamila did not answer as to where she wanted to go nor she made any statement before this Court qua the involvement of the petitioner. The said circumstances in my view are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within two fold of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his B furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Bench. H.B.T./M-391? ????????????????????? Bail granted.