1988 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. IMTIAZ AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. IMTIAZ AKHTAR‑‑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. IMTIAZ AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Allah Ditta Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/16‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused a woman and her case falling within proviso to S.497, Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Co‑accused already granted bail by Court below‑‑No exceptional reason existing to refuse bail‑‑Bail granted. Ali Raza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Allah Ditta Khan Baloch for Petitioner. Ali Raza for the State. This is an Application for grant of bail to Mst. Imtiaz Akhtar in case under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at P.S.
18. Hazari, District Jhang vide F.I.R. No. 129/1987.
2. The prosecution case is that Muhammad Nawaz co‑accused abducted Mst. Imtiaz and thereafter she had been committing Zina with him with her consent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct evidence of commission of Zina by petitioner with Muhammad Nawaz. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that the vaginal swabs were found stained with semen.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner is a woman and her case falls within the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C., that A Muhammad Nawaz co‑accused has already been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and that I do not see any exceptional reason to refuse the concession of bail to the petitioner.
5. For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate. Jhang. M.Y.H./I‑56/L. Bail granted.