1984 P Cr (PLP)
MASOOD AHMAD alias SOODA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J |
| Parties | MASOOD AHMAD alias SOODA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) 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: Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MASOOD AHMAD alias SOODA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farooq Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Muhammad Rafiq for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
5. 497/496--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)--Bai1--Offence of Zina--Eye-witnesses not supporting prosecution case--Case against accused requiring further inquiry--Bail granted.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.693/B of 1983, decided on 7th June, 1983.
5. 497/496--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)--Bai1--Offence of Zina--Eye-witnesses not supporting prosecution case--Case against accused requiring further inquiry--Bail granted. Farooq Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Muhammad Rafiq for the State. Petitioner in this case is accused of offence under section 10(2) of Ordinance VII of 1979. It is alleged that petitioner was found committing Zina with the co-accused Mst. Nasreenn in the house of the latter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there were three eye-witnesses of the occurrence, all of them have sworn in affidavits in which they have deposed that they did not see the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the release of petitioner on bail because vaginal swabs of Mst. Nasreenn were taken by the lady doctor who medically examined her and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner these are stained with semen.
3. The case against the petitioner is of further inquiry because all the eye-witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case at this stage. Therefore, I order release of the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Chichawatni: M. Y. H. Bail granted.