1988 P Cr (PLP)
Mst..SAEEDA alias HUMAYUN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst..SAEEDA alias HUMAYUN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (Mst..SAEEDA alias HUMAYUN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqsood Ahmad Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11 & 16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No direct evidence of commission of Zina by anyone with accused woman‑‑Case of such woman falling within proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C., bail was allowed. Mian Mushtaq for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Maqsood Ahmad Malik for Petitioner. Mian Mushtaq for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Mst. Saeeda alias Humayun in a case under section 380, P.P.C. and section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No. VI of 1979 and under sections 11 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No. VII of 1979, registered at P.S. Township, Lahore vide F.I.R. No.25/88, dated 14‑2‑1988.
2. The prosecution case is that Mst. Nusrat, the real sister of Mst. Saeeda, deceitfully took away the petitioner from the house of her husband /complainant and thereafter she was sent to the house of Khizer Hussain and Shaukat Hussain son of Ghulam Haider and that when the complainant met her and asked her to live with him, she refused to do so. It has also been alleged that Mst. Saeeda, the petitioner had removed ornaments and cash from the house of the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the case; that there is no evidence of her abduction by Khizer Hussain, Shaukat etc. and that the stolen property could not be recovered from her although she remained with the police for eight days. The learned counsel for the State has not opposed this application and rightly so.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I feel persuaded to agree with hire. I find that there is no direct evidence of commission of Zina by anyone with the petitioner and that she being a woman, her case falls within the proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For what has been said above, she is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. City, Lahore. S. A./S‑231/L Bail allowed.