1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUSHTAQ AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUSHTAQ AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Sulehria for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Charge of abduction and rape‑‑Accused named in F.I.R. and also instatement of abductee‑‑Delay in reporting matter to Police, explained‑‑Mere fact that doctor has given age of accused as 17 years, held, would not as of right entitle accused to bail in circumstances. Salim Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Nawaz Sulehria for Petitioner. Salim Shad for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1986. The petitioner alongwith others stands charged with the abduction of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar (19) and subjecting her to Zina‑bil‑jabr. Bail is urged on the ground that there is a delay of three months in reporting the matter to the police and further that the petitioner according to the medical examination is 17 years of age.
3. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. as also in the statement of the abductee made by her under section 164; Cr.P.C. She has levelled allegation of rape against the petitioner. The mere fact that the doctor has given the age of the petitioner as 17 years will not as of right entitle him to bail. The delay in reporting the matter to the police has been explained. Keeping in view the nature of the allegation against the petitioner. I do not consider him entitled to bail and accordingly dismiss the application. S.A. Application dismissed.