2001 PLP 2579 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2579 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2579 (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 2001 PLP 2579 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2579 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st September, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was declared innocent in the investigation conducted by the police‑‑‑Delay of six months in registering case against the accused had not properly been explained and there was no direct evidence/witness of the alleged occurrence‑‑ Accused was on judicial remand and the challan had not been submitted‑‑‑Completion of the trial being not in sight, the accused could not be allowed to be detained for an indefinite period‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Naseem Rashid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was arrested on 7‑9‑2000 in case F.I.R. No.122 :of 2000, dated 5‑7‑2000 registered at Police Station, Makhdoompur Peboran District Khanevxal under section 10(3), Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. According to the complainant, the accused forcibly committed illegal intercourse with her while she was out in a field to answer the call of nature. It was further alleged that she remained silent for six months on account of fear but could no more hold the same inasmuch she had become pregnant on account of the said incident.
3. For the petitioner it is stated that the delay of six months is not explained; that first investigation has declared the petitioner/accused to be innocent while the second has not been finalized so far, that there is no eye‑witness to the alleged incident nor the submissions made even if subsequently proved to be correct answer the requirements of section 8 of the Ordinance VII of 1979. Also it is claimed that since no recovery of the knife etc., was made from the petitioner his case‑ was that of further inquiry in the fact and circumstances of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the State however, opposes the prayer.
5. After considering the submissions made at the bar, I will agree that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. He has been declared innocent in the investigation so far conducted by the police, the delay of six months is not properly explained nor there is any direct evidence/witness of the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is on judicial remand and the challan has not so far been submitted. The completion of trial not being in sight the petitioner cannot be allowed to be detained for an indefinite period. Accordingly this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑828/L Bail granted.