1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Lehrasap Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑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: Lehrasap Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 6th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16‑‑Bail‑‑No allegation of rape against accused ‑‑Abductee not recovered from accused‑‑Medical evidence in respect of abductee could not be of much consequence because she was married woman Bail granted. Sh. Ijaz Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Ijaz Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1984. Muhammad Ali petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No. 284, dated 19‑8‑1983, of Police Station Depalpur, seeks to be released on bail.
2. It is alleged that on 11‑7‑1983, i.e. one month and eight days prior to the registration of the case, the petitioner with the abetment of Hasani, Latif Farzand and Shaman etc. abducted Mst. Taj Bibi, aged about 20/21 years, a married daughter of Muhammad Sarwar, the first informant, for illicit purposes. Hasani etc. have been declared innocent as a result of investigation but the petitioner is in the lock‑up since the registration of the case and challan has not yet been submitted.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that delay of more than one month in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained and that the offence punishable under section lb of Ordinance VII of 1979 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. It has further been urged that a period of more than six months has elapsed since after the arrest of the petitioner but no challan against, him has so far been submitted.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the State that there are allegations of rape against the petitioner and, therefore, he did not deserve to be released on bail.
5. There are no such allegations in the F. I. R. No statement of the abductee, containing allegations of rape against the petitioner, has been shown. The abductee has since been recovered but not from the petitioner. Medical evidence in respect of the abductee, if any, cannot be of much consequence because she is admittedly a married woman.
6. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the meats of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Depalpur. M. A. K. Bail granted.