2012 PLP 824 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 824 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 824 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 824 (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: 2012 PLP 824 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamran Khalil for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(ii)/337-F(v)/337-L(1), (2)/ 452/34
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16
Causing hurt, house trespass and abduction
Accused had allegedly enticed away the daughter-in-law of the complainant due to illicit intimacy with her
Complainant had not named the accused in the F.I.R., but had implicated him in the case in his supplementary statement recorded after five years of the occurrence, the evidentiary value of which would be determined at the trial
No other evidence existed on record except the said belated supplementary statement of the complainant
Guilt of accused, thus, needed further probe under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Commencement of trial was not a clog on grant of bail to accused
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 rel.
S. 497
Effect
Commencement of trial of accused in the case is not a clog on grant of bail to him. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 rel. Khurram Khan, D.P.-G. for the State with Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.-I., with police record. Respondent No.2/Complainant, in person.
Judgment & Decree
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.
Petitioner Muhammad Tariq through the instant petition has prayed for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R No. 453 registered under sections 337-A(ii)/ 337-F(v)/ 337-L(1)(2)/ 452/34, P.P.C. and section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd), Ordinance No. VII of 1979 with Police Station, Saddar, Sarai Alamgir, District Gujrat on 3-9-2005.
2. The allegation against him is that he along with others has enticed away his daughter-in-law Mst. Saadia.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is not named in the F.I.R. The incident allegedly had taken place on 23-8-2005. The instant case, while, was registered on 3-9-2005.
4. His name for the first time has figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 14-12-2010. He in the same has stated that he nominates him (petitioner) as an accused and his such statement may be treated as the part of the F.I.R. and he may be arrested and his said daughter-in-law may be recovered. He in the same has also stated that he (petitioner) along with others has enticed away his said daughter-in-law due to illicit intimacy with her.
5. The learned D.P.-G. has informed that the said daughter-in-law of the complainant has been arrayed in the case as an accused being consenting party.
6. It is admitted position on the record that except than this statement of the complainant, there is no other evidence on the record against him.
7. The question of evidentiary value of such belated supplementary statement of the complainant would be determined at trial as it was recorded more than five years after the alleged offence. His case, therefore, certainly calls for further inquiry into his guilt and the same so, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars since 18-2-2011 and a previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
9. However, the learned D.P.-G. has informed that his trial has commenced and in the same many prosecution witnesses have been examined. The commencement of trial is not a clog on grant of bail to him. In this regard reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585).
10. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to extend him the relief prayed for.
11. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-815/L Bail allowed.