1989 PLP 708 (MLD)
GHULAM RASUL‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 708 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mukhtar Ahmed Juejo, J |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 708 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 708 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mukhtar Ahmed Juejo, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 708 (MLD) (GHULAM RASUL‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11, 13, 14, 15 & 16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Name of accused not appearing in first information report or in statement of prosecutrix under S.164, Cr.P.C.‑‑First Information Report delayed by fifteen days‑‑Co‑accused already granted bail‑ Accused also admitted to bail in circumstances. Haji Abdul Majid for Applicant. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, A.‑G., Sind for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Haji Abdul Majid for Applicant. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, A.‑G., Sind for the State. Applicant Ghulam Rasool has moved for bail in F.I.R. No. 55/85 of Police Station, Sanghar. According to F.I.R. 15 days prior to 21‑7‑1983 at about 11/12 noon Muhammad Hanif, Arshad alias Achoo, Anwar and Mst. Maqbool Begum alias Rani trespassed in house of complainant Gulzar situated to Housing Society, Sanghar and insisted upon Mst. Nasim and Mst. Shamim to be taken to house of Muhammad Hanif. Subsequently, the two girls were dragged by Muhammad Hanif and his wife Maqbool. Anwar and Arshad removed from the complainant's house some household articles. Cries raised by the complainant attracted witnesses Muhammad Zar and Muhammad Tufail who saw the incident. The two girls were put in a car, which was driven away. Such F.I.R. was lodged by Gulzar. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majid, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, A.‑G., Sind. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the name of the applicant did not appear in the F.I.R. and that the story given by Mst. Shamim in her 164 statement was improbable because the father of two sons could not have committed sexual intercourse in his house in presence of his sons and other family members. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho did not oppose bail on the ground that there was nothing in the record to show if Mst. Shamim had alleged rape by applicant Ghulam Rasool. To that extent learned Advocate‑General did not agree with the observation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Name of applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. or in the 164 statement of Mst. Shacnun. The F.I.R. is delayed by 15 days. Co‑accused Abdul Karim was granted bail by me on 8‑11‑1988. In the circumstances I grant bail to applicant Ghulamn Rasool in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar. M.Y.H./G‑103/KBail granted.