1984 PLP 1511 (SCMR)
ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1511 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafi ur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1511 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1511 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafi ur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1511 (SCMR) (ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 1984.
- M. Kaukab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and Order dated 5‑3‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Criminal Misc. No. 32‑B of 19841. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.497(5)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Bail cancellation of‑‑Order of High Court cancelling bail of petitioners found to be unexceptionable and exercise of discretion not meriting further examination or interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused. M. Kaukab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioners who are charged under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 5‑3‑1984 whereby bail granted to them earlier by the Sessions Judge was cancelled. The petitioners alongwith two others are charged by Muhammad Sabir the father of Mst. Majida said to be aged 14/15 years who was abducted and raped on 13‑1‑1984 and the days following. The statement of Mst. Majida was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. She was cross examined at that stage on behalf of the petitioners and others. She was medically examined also and two abrasions were found on her thighs. The hymen was absent. The swabs did not show stains or presence of semen. Mst. Maoda charged the two petitioners directly for having raped her and Abdul Qayyum for having abducted her. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, considered it a case for further inquiry and admitted to bail the petitioners and others charged for the offence. An application was then moved by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail. The learned Judge in the High Court re‑examined the facts and held that reasonable grounds exist so far as implication of the two petitioners was concerned and the case of the other two was distinguishable from them. Hence their bail was cancelled but that of their companions was maintained. From the F.I.R. and the medical report the age of Mst. Majida appears to be 15 Years. She has alleged her abduction and rape by the two petitioners. The presence of two abrasions on her thighs has been taken to be a supporting material so far as her allegation is concerned. It is true that Wajid's name does not appear in the F.I.R. but it does appear in the statement of Mst. Majida, recorded after her recovery and she has charged him of having committed once rape on her. We find that the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and the exercise of discretion does not merit further examination or interference at our level. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. S. Q. Leave refused.