2000 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik M. Shabbir Langrial for Petitioner,
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑‑Bail, grant. of‑‑‑Accused had been found innocent in most of the investigations by the police and his case needed further inquiry‑‑‑No useful purpose could be served by detaining the accused in jail for an indefinite period as according to the prosecution, the submission of challan in Court was not yet in sight muchless to say of the completion of the trial‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Mian Kamran‑Bin‑Latif for the, State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is accused of offence under section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. In the F.I.R. No. 104 of 1999, dated 19‑3‑1999, the complainant alleged forcible intercourse by the accused on the day of occurrence. She further alleged that even on earlier occasions, the accused had been indulging in similar acts which made her pregnant.
2. The accused was ‑allowed pre‑arrest bail which was subsequently re called on 1‑9‑1999. His post‑arrest bail application was also rejected on 28‑9‑1999.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner‑strongly contends that the case against the petitioner has been registered on account of enmity between two tribes, that the delay of one day is not explained and that till now foul investigations were held by police on various occasions out of which in three investigations the accused was declared innocent. Also refers to the medical examination report of the complainant which does not indicate any marks of violence. It is further claimed that in one investigation, the police found one Allah Yar of the village the real culprit. Also refers to the affidavits of a number of persons belonging to the said village wherein the occurrence had been denied.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, almost repeats the aforesaid last order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby he refused the bail application of the present petitioner. He admits that even in the fourth and last investigation held, the accused had been found innocent. It is also not denied that the accused was not arrested by the police for a considerable time in view of at‑least two investigation reports of his innocence.
5. On consideration of the aforesaid submissions, I am of the view that this is a case of further inquiry. The accused having been sent to Jail, no useful purpose will be served by detaining him for an indefinite period, as according to the prosecution, the submission of challan does not appear in sight muchless to say of the completion of the trial. The accused having been found innocent in most of the investigations made in this regard he is entitled to concession of bail which is accordingly allowed.
6. The petitioner will be released on bail, if not required in any other case subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trail Court. N.H.Q./M‑75/L Bail allowed