1989 PLP 4173 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4173 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4173 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4173 (MLD)?
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: 1989 PLP 4173 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M Arshad Javed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979). S. 10/11‑‑Bail‑‑Accused allegedly trespassed into house of victim, took her to his house and committed Zina with her‑‑Statutory time in conclusion of trial not yet elapsed‑‑Accused relying on negative Chemical Examiner's report as a fresh ground, which had been received before date on which accused's first application for bail was rejected and said report was not brought to notice of the Court‑‑ Ample evidence collected by Police with regard to commission of abduction for Zina‑bil‑Jabar by accused with victim was on record‑‑Held, it could not be said that a fresh ground had arisen in due course of events which might entitle accused to concession of bail‑‑Bail refused. (b) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Zina‑bil‑Jabar‑‑Chemical Examiner's report‑‑Negative report does not constitute a reasonable ground to believe that accused had not committed the offence. Imran Nazir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Zina‑bil‑Jabar‑‑Chemical Examiner's report‑‑Negative report does not constitute a reasonable ground to believe that accused had not committed the offence. M Arshad Javed for Petitioner. Imran Nazir for the State. This is second application for bail to Muhammad Yousaf petitioner in case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Khurarianwala, vide F.I.R. No. 13 dated 25‑1 1988.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner criminally trespassed into the house of Mst. Shagufta Parveen, forcibly took her to his house and committed Zina‑bil‑Jabar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chemical Examiner's Report shows that the vaginal swabs were not stained with semen and this aspect of the case was not considered by this Court at the time of the rejection of the earlier application and that the petitioner is in jail for the last about 7 months and no evidence has been recorded so far. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application,
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the statutory time in conclusion of the trial has not elapsed yet; that although the Chemical Examiner's Report had been received by the police before 26‑4‑1988 i.e. the date of the hearing of the earlier application, yet this was not brought to the notice of the Courts by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Chemical Examiner's report was available on 26‑4‑1988 when the earlier application was rejected, therefore, it cannot be said that fresh ground has arisen in due course of events which may entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail; that in view of the ample evidence collected by the police with regard to the commission of abduction for Zina‑bil-jabar by the petitioner with Mst. Shagufta Parveen, the solitary circumstance of the negative Chemical Examiner's report, does not constitute a reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed. M.Y.H./M‑1414/L Bail refused.